The bourgeoisie are liars and cheats and didnt earn their wealth!

That's not true at all, the labourer's work is worth only as much as their employer deems it to be, neither capitalist nor public owned enterprises deem remedial work to be worth more than a pittance. You wouldn't earn anymore if your boss was an administrator rather than a CEO.

You don't know any socialists /pol/

Maybe you should look up how real life co-ops work, and what happens when the workers are the bosses that can hire and fire management, rather than management hiring and firing workers.

>Was their wealth not created from the sweat and blood of their workers?
How much have workers ever achieved by themselves? A factory's profit is not just generated by the workers, but by the people who paid for it to be built, who decide what is to be made and how much and how it is to be made and how and where to whom to sell it.

Im not /pol/, and yes I have multiple friends who constantly rant about how great socialism is and how communism isn't as bad as people make it out to be

I spend time with these people very little anymore

Well you don't understand basically economics.

Like Ford already said. Produce as cheap as possible while paying as high wages as possible.

Consumerism (having people you produce for) is a vet important aspect of every Single company.

Your "friends" were probably from middle school and didn't even know the proper definitions of socialism and communism.

I'm not denying that a business takes a lot of time and effort to create. That's not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to contest that communism is founded on a slave morality, which I disagree with. I provided a reasoning for why I disagree with it. Even if a business takes a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, so long as the business has to hire employees, it will be relying on other people's labor.

Capitalists are playing totally fair by the system under they live in, so they can't be cheating. People who commit crimes generally are driven to commit crimes because of their conditions, ie they are poor or have shittier access to basic goods and services than others, and they'd like to change that. Commit crimes is one way to do that.

I don't see the bourgeoisie as evil. I see them as my opposition. I don't want to kill them if I don't have to, because there's no reason for needless bloodshed. However, if a member of the bourgeoisie should stand in the way of communism, I will have no choice but to kill them.

Your friends probably have good reasoning for all of these statements that you aren't taking the time to hear.

New to the thread, but you can flip that argument around. Labor, or at least effective labor in the mechanized age, often takes tools and education such that the laborer doesn't have access to and can't create on his own. (Nevermind the social factors that also increase efficiency)
What portion of the labor should be going to the person who furnishes him with the tools and training to labor efficiently?

>Capitalists are playing totally fair by the system under they live in
#notallcapitalists

It's not as if the productive capacity of individuals poofs away without capital. It's true that capital is the driving force behind why we produce things today, but that's because workers do not have much choice but to submit to capital. Not selling my labor means living off of food stamps or montly federal checks. Workers under capitalism do not produce by themselves, you're right, but their ability to labor does not disappear just because capital disappears.

If you're concerned with labor not done for profit, I can point to most labor funded by the state as an example of laborers producing without the motivation of for-profit capital.

Right, and the people who produce the tools that we use to produce more goods should be compensated an appropriate amount, certainly. I don't think communists in general have much issue with compensation for individuals or groups of individuals who produce productive equipment. The exact rate of compensation these people should receive is not something I have the answer to, and it would require precise equations I don't have the time nor care to think up.

The issue of capitalism comes from people who get to extract profit from their laborers solely because they own the means of production, which is to say business owners who do not do labor themselves but receive a large portion of the proceeds of labor. These sorts of people are the undesirable class that communists seek to be rid of.

>muh property spook

It comes from the realization that property is a social construct, and your property is not you.

>The issue of capitalism comes from people who get to extract profit from their laborers solely because they own the means of production, which is to say business owners who do not do labor themselves but receive a large portion of the proceeds of labor. These sorts of people are the undesirable class that communists seek to be rid of.

Those two do not connect though.

You can have a business owner who doesn't labor himself in the factory or whatever. But he is the one who provided those laborers with the tools and supplies and framework that without such they could not effectively labor and increases their productivity exponentially. If you accept that the production of tools should be compensated, then the provision of tools should be compensated, and by and large, that is what the "capitalist class" does.

Which again, doesn't even begin to get into any sort of human capital increase on behalf of the capitalist towards the laborers, which is often considerable.

Capitalists, or at least not successful capitalists, don't just sit on piles of money and cackle about their successes. They are almost always actually providing something, usually organizational expertise, and/or access to equipment and training that would otherwise be unavailable, to whatever firms they're running.

>The exact rate of compensation these people should receive is not something I have the answer to, and it would require precise equations I don't have the time nor care to think up.

And if it can't be done? Economic systems are well, systems. They work because they have a large number of interconnecting parts that don't work without each other. Trying to pin down what is solely due to this, that, or the other person's labor is certainly almost impossible to do in practice, and very well might be theoretically impossible to do.

>However, if a member of the bourgeoisie should stand in the way of communism, I will have no choice but to kill them.
Edgy

>Workers under capitalism do not produce by themselves, you're right, but their ability to labor does not disappear just because capital disappears.
But a lot of their labor's value does.

It's really simple. Socialists don't think of property as a natural right. And the reality is property is not a natural right, hence the adage "Possession is nine-tenths of the law"

Capitalism on the other hand, sees private ownership of capital as a fundamental right, and therefore the owner should get his due.

That's the difference. If you view property as a fundamental, unalienable natural right, or if you see property as a social construct within the realm of society to regulate and distribute.

All of your arguments come from the fact that the capitalist "owns". A socialist does not believe the capitalist has a fundamental right to ownership and it's up to society to determine ownership. A capitalist believes in the fundamental right of ownership, and he owns by right and it is inconceivable that he could be deprived of what he considers to be his property, such would be tantamount to theft.

Here's the other reality. Capitalists own their capital because they can defend it. They can defend it by fleeing with their capital to somewhere else to a society that does recognize their right of ownership.

>If you accept that the production of tools should be compensated, then the provision of tools should be compensated, and by and large, that is what the "capitalist class" does.

Well, the capitalist class pays other companies to transport these tools and supplies and framework necessary for laboring at a location. The capitalist does not do this work themselves, they pay the money for it. Of course the ordering to receive productive supplies has its own value, and certainly the person responsible, whether they be the capitalist or not, deserves some compensation for giving the means of production the means it needs to produce. I won't dispute that such work is valuable.

>They are almost always actually providing something, usually organizational expertise, and/or access to equipment and training that would otherwise be unavailable, to whatever firms they're running.

If a capitalist is spending their time managing their business to be more efficient, then that behavior should be compensated, certainly. The key point I want to make here is that productive work that increases the rate at which goods or services are produced or the quality at which they are shipped should be compensated an appropriate amount, whether that work involve actual creation or is more logistical in nature. The key is that at the end of the day, the amount of value that a given laborer creates for a capitalist is always more than what the capitalist has paid the laborer for their effort. There is always a disparity between the cost of the final product and the cost of the labor it took to create that product, by which I mean includes both the creation on site and the numerous other tasks required to create the product in the first place, like the transportation or creation of means to produce. Since the capitalist is always looking for profit compared to what he paid for, the worker is not able to receive the full monetary value of their labor, as some must be reserved as profit.

>All of your arguments come from the fact that the capitalist "owns"

No, they don't. One of my arguments, and not even the chief one, is based around the ownership and provision of capital. And given that yes, they do seem to be able to defend that ownership and keep their system in place, that such an argument is in tune with observable reality: Sans capitalist, you are sans capital, and the laborer's labor is enormously diminished.

However, my main argument is that determining the actual value of a laborer's labor is impossible in any sort of interconnected economic system. You can even demonstrate this without the input of a capitalist class, merely looking at laborers interacting with other laborers.

Suppose, in a ridiculous but I hope illustrative example, every single person engaged in transportation of goods went on strike tomorrow, worldwide. All the truck drivers, train operators, ship captains, pilots, etc, none of them did their jobs. If you want to move anything, you get out and carry it or use whatever personal means you can muster.

I think it's fair to say that the worldwide economy would collapse almost overnight. You can't have any sort of meaningful economy, any sort of specialization, any sort of production, without the means to get input and output from point A to point B.

Now let's do the same analysis for food producers. Farmers, fishermen, hunters, you name it. This one takes a little longer, because there are enough stored food reserves to keep the world going for at least a little while, but you get the same result if this silly strike continues indefinitely; collapse of the world system of economy and endemic starvation.

In both cases, removing a key segment of labor from the equation leads to utter catastrophe and most likely an elimination of all or at least most labor everywhere. And yet you can't say (or distribute as such) that both segments are owed the totality of value, because their labor enables all other.

2/2, ran a bit over the character limit

So you can't turn around and say that your labor is defined by the aggregate value it creates in part, at least not across something as large and unwieldy as an economic class. And I've never once seen an even remotely plausible system for trying to factor in how an enormous number of different people doing different things each add X to the total pie and thus deserve X back (which is where the capitalist part of the argument comes in, but that's again not the main thrust). You could argue that a laborer's value is such that it costs to replace him with a similar laborer, but that one undercuts most socialist positions.

>The key is that at the end of the day, the amount of value that a given laborer creates for a capitalist is always more than what the capitalist has paid the laborer for their effort. There is always a disparity between the cost of the final product and the cost of the labor it took to create that product, by which I mean includes both the creation on site and the numerous other tasks required to create the product in the first place, like the transportation or creation of means to produce. Since the capitalist is always looking for profit compared to what he paid for, the worker is not able to receive the full monetary value of their labor, as some must be reserved as profit.

Economics as a zero sum game has been abandoned for over a hundred years, user. It's not even what you're saying is wrong, it's just nonsensical.

Nobody thinks to themselves, "Well, Bob there makes, at the end of the year, 75,000 worth of goods, so if I pay him 66,000, I'm up 9,000!" Yes, of course, if the cost of Bob's continued services is more than the value he adds to the firm in whatever form, he's likely to get the boot or the firm eventually goes under.

But you're leaving out the rather important flip side of that equation, namely the supply side of the laborer's value that goes up by the capitalist's intervention. Bob in turn works at his factory or whatever because (at least in a free society that doesn't force you to work at a specific job), the one he has offers him the best package in terms of pay and other compensatory factors. If he becomes aware of a "better" job, not necessarily higher paying, but one that offers him a better return on his labor, he'll take it, assuming he's free to. The laborer works for the capitalist because doing so is more efficient for him than laboring on his own in absence of the capitalist, even with the part that goes to the capitalist. He too, is making money that wouldn't have existed before.

>Sans capitalist, you are sans capital, and the laborer's labor is enormously diminished.
Sans laws, you the capitalist, are sans capital, and the capitalist's right of ownership is enormously diminished.

>However, my main argument is that determining the actual value of a laborer's labor is impossible in any sort of interconnected economic system.
No it's not. That's what markets do, and they work in capitalism. If you take a market socialist, all they want to do is remove the influence of capital from the market.

>In both cases, removing a key segment of labor from the equation leads to utter catastrophe and most likely an elimination of all or at least most labor everywhere.
Your examples make no sense and have nothing to do with determining value, except for the ability of certain segments to wreck the system if they work collectively to undermine it.

>You could argue that a laborer's value is such that it costs to replace him with a similar laborer, but that one undercuts most socialist positions.
No it doesn't. That undercuts meme socialist positions. Not every socialist is a tankie that wants Stalinist central planning. Maybe you should read up on Ricardian socialists who were around before Marx.

On the other hand, the capitalist doesn't have to compete with other able people who could choose to distribute capital in an optimal way, and only does so in a way that benefits himself when there's an economic barrier, meaning he isn't producing at equilibrium, where maximum economic efficiency happens, and is instead incurring a dead weight loss.

>Sans laws, you the capitalist, are sans capital, and the capitalist's right of ownership is enormously diminished.

Sans laws, usually nobody has capital, and the productive capacity in general shrinks enormously.

>No it's not. That's what markets do, and they work in capitalism. If you take a market socialist, all they want to do is remove the influence of capital from the market.

Markets usually work on replacement principles, which posit that your worth is based on the cost of how easy it is to get another whatever it is just like you. The idea of a laborer's value and what they create doesn't even enter into the equation. It's so contrary to the position you've been stating that I didn't even consider it.

>Your examples make no sense and have nothing to do with determining value, except for the ability of certain segments to wreck the system if they work collectively to undermine it.

My examples are there to point out that you can posit at least 2, and very probably more than that groups who can shut down the entire economy should they collectivize to do so, and can plausibly claim in a system of "you deserve the fruits of your labor" to deserve everything.

>No it doesn't. That undercuts meme socialist positions. Not every socialist is a tankie that wants Stalinist central planning. Maybe you should read up on Ricardian socialists who were around before Marx.

Maybe you should actually make a defense of your statements instead of author citing. If you adopt a value replacement theory of labor value, then it's hard to argue that laborers don't already receive the value of their labor in a capitalist system, at which point why change things at all?

>On the other hand, the capitalist doesn't have to compete with other able people who could choose to distribute capital in an optimal way and only does so in a way that benefits himself when there's an economic barrier

And your proof of that is? I've seen capitalists compete with each other, it happens reasonably often any time you see chains of gas stations moving around.

>, where maximum economic efficiency happens, and is instead incurring a dead weight loss.

You do realize it's very possible for him to produce efficiency and gain, just not maximum efficiency, instead of being a "dead weight loss"?

I'm a nub and it's quite late/early, but isn't that also a flaw in capitalism, in a sense? Er, to articulate it more clearly- the capitalist who accrues capital by the labour of the labourer will, by degrees, expand his or her operation so as to have more labourers and produce more capital. Because labourers are finite, and time is finite, and capital, as a representation of resources, must be finite, this then means that more capital becomes intrinsically tied to the operation- meaning that there must, inherently, be a smaller and smaller portion of the metaphorical pie that can go to the labourer, because more and more of it is being tied up to the capitalist.

Isn't that a self-destructive inefficiency, even taking into account the presence of competition amongst capitalists? Doesn't the capitalistic system therefore inevitably lead, uninterrupted, to an economic paralysis, which is, essentially, a death?

>Sans laws, usually nobody has capital, and the productive capacity in general shrinks enormously.
Sans laws that protect your private property rights.

>Markets usually work on replacement principles, which posit that your worth is based on the cost of how easy it is to get another whatever it is just like you.
There is nothing wrong with this unless you're Marx and throwing a fit over how this is dehumanizing.

> The idea of a laborer's value and what they create doesn't even enter into the equation.
Yes it does. They pick a job at a market rate they think provides them suitable compensation for their labor.

>It's so contrary to the position you've been stating that I didn't even consider it.
Maybe you should consider it.

>My examples are there to point out that you can posit at least 2, and very probably more than that groups who can shut down the entire economy should they collectivize to do so, and can plausibly claim in a system of "you deserve the fruits of your labor" to deserve everything.
Under the basis that they're unreplacable. Why would anyone in any society, socialist or capitalist, stand for that shit? Either they find some sort of mutually acceptable compromise, or they fight over it.

>Maybe you should actually make a defense of your statements instead of author citing.
Are you literally retarded? Capital influences markets because only some people have lots of excess capital beyond what they can personally make use of, and those capitalists demand a cut for use of their capital otherwise they have no reason to lend out their capital.

>If you adopt a value replacement theory of labor value, then it's hard to argue that laborers don't already receive the value of their labor in a capitalist system, at which point why change things at all?
It's not hard to argue at all. Have you even read the fucking Wealth of Nations by this guy named Adam Smith? Or is that too "author citing" for you?

>And your proof of that is? I've seen capitalists compete with each other, it happens reasonably often any time you see chains of gas stations moving around.
They don't compete as much, not they don't compete at all. They compete as little as they are able to afforded by economic barriers. This always happens because it's maximization of profit.

>You do realize it's very possible for him to produce efficiency and gain, just not maximum efficiency, instead of being a "dead weight loss"?
Okay, it's clear I'm dealing with an idiot that thinks he knows about economics because of some memes, and hasn't even taken econ 101 and taken a look at a monopoly supply and demand plot. You don't even know what dead weight loss is, and you think it's some sort of meme you can put in quotes and dismiss.

>Sans laws that protect your private property rights.

I'm so glad you agree with me.

>There is nothing wrong with this unless you're Marx and throwing a fit over how this is dehumanizing.

Ok, we'll go with that for the rest of the conversation.

>Yes it does. They pick a job at a market rate they think provides them suitable compensation for their labor.

Which is only incidentally related to the value of the labor you were mentioning upthread. It's why miners as a whole tend to make more or less the same amount, whether they're employed at a lead mine or a gold mine. Until you hit that floor where the expected value of the labor is running up against the cost of securing replacements, you have no meaningful relationship between the two.

>Maybe you should consider it.

Upon consideration, the amount you are owed by owning your labor in a system where your labor is worth that which it costs to replace isn't all that damn much except in a very few specialized fields, and it makes little sense to switch economic models because of it.

> Capital influences markets because only some people have lots of excess capital beyond what they can personally make use of, and those capitalists demand a cut for use of their capital otherwise they have no reason to lend out their capital.

And that doesn't respond to my question at all. If we're asserting that the value of a laborer's labor is such that what it costs to replace him, then most market economies already pay that for labor. How does "Ricardian socialism" differ from that?

>It's not hard to argue at all. Have you even read the fucking Wealth of Nations by this guy named Adam Smith? Or is that too "author citing" for you?

I'm still not seeing a response, user. How does the current market system not pay for labor's "real value", if you're claiming that the real value of a laborer is that which it costs to replace him with a similar laborer?

>slave morality?

Hi. You must be a teenager, new to philosophy.

The distinction between master and slave morality is probably one of Nietzsche's weakest ideas, though I suspect it's not meant to be universally applied to all moral systems, and instead meant to mark the progression of moral systems in Europe.

Except that while all three are finite, they're also not fixed. As you create more capital, you create more labor (not necessarily more laborers, but an increased ability of laborers to labor). Time you're more or less stuck with, but the other two are quite elastic. I imagine it'll give out at some point, but for a long, long time, you've got an expanding pie.

Furthermore, why must more capital become intrinsically tied to the equation? Remember, I (and possibly our socialist friend) here, are defining value primarily in how easy it is to find an alternative to your current provider, be it labor or capital. As capital increases, it becomes easier and easier to find someone else who is willing to supply capital instead of the last guy, thus creating competition among capitalists.

>They don't compete as much, not they don't compete at all. They compete as little as they are able to afforded by economic barriers. This always happens because it's maximization of profit.

Yes, and how much is that? Because in at least most economically free societies, there are quite few barriers, which necessitate competition among capital.

>kay, it's clear I'm dealing with an idiot that thinks he knows about economics because of some memes, and hasn't even taken econ 101 and taken a look at a monopoly supply and demand plot. You don't even know what dead weight loss is, and you think it's some sort of meme you can put in quotes and dismiss.

Says the man who equates suboptimal distribution of capital with deadweight loss, when precise economic terminology of deadweight loss is the loss that occurs when a good or service is unavailable. Since that is clearly not what you meant in , I assumed you were using it as a layman, and responded appropriately.

Let me amend.

Your statement is incorrect, because the capitalist not producing at equilibrium could be because there is an overabundance of capital rather than the reverse. Write more precisely.

There is literally, 0 fucking reason not to be a Marxist now

>I'm so glad you agree with me.
Therefore the capitalist is only owed as much as he is able to leverage the laws to get his due.

>Which is only incidentally related to the value of the labor you were mentioning upthread.
You do realize there's more than one socialist posting in this thread right?

>It's why miners as a whole tend to make more or less the same amount, whether they're employed at a lead mine or a gold mine.
It's the same kind of labor, so ignoring the fact that coal tends to make you die of lung cancer more than gold, that seems natural.

>Until you hit that floor where the expected value of the labor is running up against the cost of securing replacements, you have no meaningful relationship between the two.
You could come up with the same system of "replacements" with full ownership of capital (that one makes personal use of, not to rent to others) and full ownership of the fruits of your labor, and no exploitation taking place.

>Upon consideration, the amount you are owed by owning your labor in a system where your labor is worth that which it costs to replace isn't all that damn much except in a very few specialized fields, and it makes little sense to switch economic models because of it.
Why would anyone else undercut you? Because that's what cost of replacement is based on. Changing the system changes the conditions and the rate at which a competitor is willing to undercut you.

>And that doesn't respond to my question at all. If we're asserting that the value of a laborer's labor is such that what it costs to replace him, then most market economies already pay that for labor. How does "Ricardian socialism" differ from that?
Yes it does, you just seem especially ignorant about economics. The cost of replacement would different because the opportunity costs would change. The fact that capitalists own capital set replacement costs at a different place than if capitalists didn't own capital. The worker picks the best offer available

Abandon all petty political beliefs and go far red

>I'm still not seeing a response, user. How does the current market system not pay for labor's "real value", if you're claiming that the real value of a laborer is that which it costs to replace him with a similar laborer?
I'm sorry you're too stupid to read the Wealth of Nations. This has basically been known since economics was invented. The guy with more power tends to get the better deal because he can force others to settle for less. If the guy doesn't have a comparative advantage, it's harder to make him force others to settle for less. A worker is only replaced by someone willing to give up what they're currently doing for the thing you're doing.

>Yes, and how much is that? Because in at least most economically free societies, there are quite few barriers, which necessitate competition among capital.
Such as needing capital in order to be productive? Basic econ seems really hard for you.

>Says the man who equates suboptimal distribution of capital with deadweight loss, when precise economic terminology of deadweight loss is the loss that occurs when a good or service is unavailable. Since that is clearly not what you meant in , I assumed you were using it as a layman, and responded appropriately.
>Let me amend.
>Your statement is incorrect, because the capitalist not producing at equilibrium could be because there is an overabundance of capital rather than the reverse. Write more precisely.

It's clear you can't even fucking google what dead weight loss means. It means the loss in economic efficiency when not producing at equilibrium. So if the capitalist is not producing at equilibrium, there's a dead weight loss, by definition. Moron.

Here's the definition from investopedia (not a socialist website)

>A deadweight loss is a cost to society created by market inefficiency. Mainly used in economics, deadweight loss can be applied to any deficiency caused by an inefficient allocation of resources.

Hmm, what does this sound like? I dunnolol!
>Says the man who equates suboptimal distribution of capital with deadweight loss

Kill yourself.

I don't necessarily know that the creation of additional capital inherently generates an increased ability for labourers to labour; I'd nearly think that more a matter of how existing capital is applied in the endeavour of finding better and more efficient ways to utilize labour/capital (so, for example, the march of scientific progress through funding projects and such). Time, of course, we're quite stuck with, it being, as I understand, less an intrinsic quality and more a perceptual expression of motive forces and all that.

More capital would tend become intrinsically tied because, as I understand, the capitalist is encouraged to become motivated by means of self-interest, and it is in the capitalist's self-interest to generate more capital. So at some point, the capitalist reaches economic escape velocity, basically, wherein meaningful competition has essentially been converted to cooperation and profit extraction has been maximized, and the capital retained or invested (because capital can make more capital).

So I don't really see why it'd become easier to find someone else willing to supply capital- assuming an uninterrupted trajectory, capitalists would surely tend to coalesce into cooperative economic fiefdoms (internet providers in the US immediately come to mind, though I've only a very hazy comprehension) in the interest of ensuring maximal uninterrupted personal capital gain, so as to more easily achieve that escape vector. (Bill Gates comes to immediate mind as someone having basically reached escape velocity).

If we're defining value in the way you describe, it'd presumably go down under that sort've capitalistic scenario I'm describing, y'know?

Oh- I should've added that, for example, paying people to find neat legal loopholes also counts as being a way to find better and more efficient ways to utilize labour/capital. That's pretty important to consider. Making the labour more efficient doesn't always mean reducing the number of labourers or the amount of labour, for sure.

As a half-formed addendum, and I'm really sorry for posting multiple times in a row, but that could have some explanatory power for why birth rates and such are declining in Westernized countries- if there's less pie to go around, then having fewer mouths makes the pie go a little further, and it'd be in a capitalist's interest to get the same labour for lower cost by eliminating salaried workers from the payroll.

it is founded on the fallacy of ownership

this fallacy leads to slavery, racism, war, capitalism etc.

tl;dr property is a social construct

There's nothing wrong with ownership, as long as it is to the extent that is serves society, being that property is the creation of society. When the limits of ownership exceed what serves society, it should be redefined.

Is /pol/ having another "Let's invade other boards" day or something?

/pol/ is literally just cucks. They have no opinions of their own, they're opinions are all reactionary and based on being the opposite of something else.

The work is based on the contention that in the state of nature, "the earth, in its natural uncultivated state... was the common property of the human race"; the concept of private ownership arose as a exploitative result of the development of agriculture, since it was easy to manipulate to distinguish the possession of improvements to the land from the possession of the land itself. Thus, private property is exploitative and false and countered while at the same time asserting that the basic needs of all humanity must be 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 collective. The basic idea is that property is founded on exclusion. Let's take a desert oasis, in its natural state anyone can come an take water, but when someone claims ownership over it, all those other people have no been deprived of their ability to do so.

>Globalism is the devil!
>We do not need other countries and I want protection for my industries!
Do conservatives pretend to like Capitalism until it bites their asses?

Slave morality is a convenient morality invented from a position of powerlessness. Slaves try to trick masters that their power over them is evil because that's all they can do

So socialism and its modern incarnation is slave morality, the radical communist break off in the late 19th century wasn't slave morality because it pushed for mass action and violence

>oh no hes making fun of socialism
>surely he must be an evil alt righter!
The only b8 I see in this thread is your post. If its not b8 then I feel bad that your thought process is so black and white that you have no ability concieve of anything between far left and far right

>Slave morality is a convenient morality invented from a position of powerlessness. Slaves try to trick masters that their power over them is evil because that's all they can do

Why is it always the weakest faggots who hold this opinion

It's because they don't work for what they achieve

Slave Morality is basically redefining losing as winning so you feel like a winner.
>our oppressors have all the power
>lets invent a morality that conviently demonizes everything they have and praises everything we have
Literally why christianity became popular

>Slave Morality is basically redefining losing as winning so you feel like a winner.

No, it's called "working". I know this is new to you, because you're a pussy, but most of us have to work for what we want.

What in the fuck are you talking about? I just explained the definition of slave morality. Are you fucking retarded? Please get off this board and dont come back until you graduate the 8th grade

It was a trade

>Lol taken
>Lol all the value comes from labour
Spoopy

>What in the fuck are you talking about?

Anybody who uses the term slave morality is unemployed

>Anybody who uses the term slave morality is unemployed
Explain

>Work = wanting gibs
>Work = not accepting a fair trade foe what you have to offer and instead wanting to steal others' things
>Work = making a cult of personality over academic elitists and having the put their boots on your head when the revolution is over
I fucking hate white people.

>Anybody who uses the term slave morality is unemployed
Or it means theyve read Nietzsche you fucking idiot

>Explain

Dont see Nietzsche on your pathetic buzz image.

Do you always use this to avoid conceiving of an argument

Half of these youtube channels are complete opposites

master morality is viewing and acting as master-creator of self, they create things
slave morality is viewing the world thorough oppressor-oppressed mentality, with master as oppressor, they don't make things, they take things, their whole ethical code is based upon rejection of the master morality and not of original conception like the master was

Only teenagers and losers idolize Nietzsche

>all rich are only rich because they cheatef and stole their way to the top
> all poor are poor through no fault of their own and are being kept in servitude through an unfair system of exploitation
Socialism is unable to see the nuances here

>rich people saving up money and spreading the wealth to their children and grandchildren monopolizes wealth at the top and stifles competition
>poor people need to invest for the future and adopt the style of generational wealth
Directly contradictory ideologies

Strawmen for sure but I think it's applicable

Whos idolizing him? Is analyzing something through one of his concepts now idolizing him?

Strawman to the max...... socialists want to abolish the right of inheritance

So the majority of Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums?

Is abolishing inheritance under the assumption that you would also abolish house transference, abolish family insurance plans, and abolish gift giving?

>the only option is Slave Morality A or Slave Morality B

>all the petit bourgeoisie shills ITT