Work to accumulate capital through consensual transactions

Someone smart enough to run a successful business would likely be smart enough to rise through the ranks of the communist party under communism. Capitalists would just be replaced by communists who oppress you.

>capitalists built the factory not the worker

I feel the problem with the term "one party system" is kinda dumb, cause america isnt much better, you vote for 1 candidate from 2 pretty similar parties that only differ slightly in policies. The one party system functions sorta like this, aka your not going to vote outside of the system (communism) but you can vote for different candidates within that system (the soviet party)

What created the demand for the factories output? Worker's paychecks/disposable income?

t. union worker

technically it was another set of workers, builders who do not work in the factory once it is finished and instead go build another building, also they only did the laboring side of things, not the architecture or organization

Not to mention who designed the factory? Who has to eat enormous costs if the production is miscalculated (demand lower than expected)? Who invented the technology for the factory? Who buys the production of the factory?

Or the party murders them by the millions in the name of purging "class enemies". Meanwhile those who excel in extortion, bribery, embezzlement, and base politics are the ones who get promoted in the party.

That's why God made lobbyists so politicians could be proxies in a war between business interests. Instead of regurgitating dogma about "class enemies" and acting in unison. One of the great weapons of liberty isn't promoting efficient government, it's making governments slow and inefficient.

lmao unless you're literally owning the factory, why wouldn't you be part of a union?

That all comes later. Everything starts with demand in a market economy. Demand comes from people with disposable income, not subsistence income.

Only because the government eliminated public lands to prevent me from farming all my food and to thereby forcibly integrate me into the capitalist economy.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

>stop competing with other workers for a fatter paycheck, they don't like it
No?

Better than getting fired for bullshit reasons. Most states besides 8 are at-will, meaning your ass is getting fired for looking at the boss wrong that day.

>subsistence wages

Every factory today pays way more than subsistence wages, this isn't 1850

>leftists in 1917: the capitalist class is exploiting the working class and we need to stop it
>leftists in 2017: we need to import more workers for capitalism to exploit, as long as the capitalists are lesbian transwymyn of colour
the new left was a big fucking mistake

>Every factory today pays way more than subsistence wages
jej

I wouldn't say everything starts with demand. Potential demand? That's a more precise description. To have even more precision, we should probably speak of "expected market demand". But that might just be syntax for the decisive thing is demand that exists, or is stoked, by a product.

That's part of the devil right there. But unfortunately, capitalism gave things that would be considered the province of the wealthy in a society organized around subsistence farming. That set of plates and cups and bowls you own? That would have been an almost unimaginable luxury for a medieval peasant.

But there's another part of the devil which taints economic systems to this day. The robbery of the value of cognitive frames.

>what?

So think of moments of consciousness and judgement and contemplation and observation as occurring in discrete moments ("frames"). If my thought comes across a cloudy sky set on fire by a sunset, I'd probably rate the value of what I'm seeing very high. If I'm watching an ad, some fuck is using my cognitive resources to sell me shit that takes money (which uses more cognitive resources) to buy more shit.

But here's the thing fuckers: I want more life. I don't want to watch sociopathic robots set up dramas and expect to be venerated as elevated socially (the whole hollywood complex). I'd pray for the death of all actors if it meant that I got to smell a piece of hay one more time or kiss my wife one more time.

This society, to the point of utter obscenity, devalues our cognitive frames in the name of social morality and in the name of making a buck. The only imperative that exists is the mercenary imperative. The idea of a quest, of filling your cognitive frames with the calculation of a meaningful world, is nearly gone.

Leftism has always been a mistake.

Note: This doesn't mean approval for "socialism" or "communism". At least capitalist systems allow for small pools of cognitive networks to create companies and products outside bureaucratic idiocy. Not all the time, not every time, but a much better track record that doesn't involve elevating mere political figures to saints.

What is to be done?: Wait for universal ACID

>Every factory today pays way more than subsistence wages
I will tell my local Flip Sweatshops of this!

>That set of plates and cups and bowls you own? That would have been an almost unimaginable luxury for a medieval peasant.

I want Whig historiography to leave.

You can always not watch television or give much use to electronics, you know?

...

Neoliberalism isn’t left wing you idiot.

It's omnipresent. Even worse, people embrace their dehumanization. They discuss and calculate little changes and signals of demand that count as de facto free cognitive processing. A charity that only benefits those who benefit from viewing reality as a zero sum game.

The more one thinks about, the more insidious everything becomes. It is a culture where you are told that everything is for the best of oneself but at the same time subordinates executive function to the debasement of the value of their own frames!

I have a feeling most people won't understand until centuries have passed by. And even then, that's if the mercenary imperative has already been conquered. A bridge to the abyss that man must avoid.

You aren't working. You're telling other people how to work. Capital can rarely be accumulated to any great extent from independent labor.

Honestly those liberals are not left by any reasonable margin. Through a deliberate, decades-long process they have undermined and neutered left-wing and working class institutions to strengthen the position of capital.

tfw you realise communism exists because people are too lazy to work and just want free shit

Capitalism by its nature produces a class of rentiers who do no work at all.

marx is an excellent example

Marx was not a renter though Engels certainly was

Almost as if those people aren't leftists

liberalism is left wing you mong.

Liberalism is pro-capital, pro-state, pro-imperialism. It's right-wing as fuck.

Not really no

Im thinking of starting a political movement where you dont have to work for people and you can just live off the land. All we have to do is displace the moneymakers and capitalists.

no one's stopping you

classic liberalism isnt

Simply put capitalism is human nature and any attempts to replace it end terribly

What makes capitalism human nature? Just because it emerged?

Socialist revolutions have happened in a dozen countries. So does that mean socialism is human nature too?

That it sustains itself on common vices, not expected virtues.

Vices are social constructs, as shown by the variations in criminality rates over different periods or populations.

Communism is based on the hope that workers could throw away their "virtuous" education and be as selfish as capitalists, thus ending exploitation.

Wages are more than good enough. People need to learn that you live within your means.

...

>>>/leftypol/

>Have my income be taken by both the government and union shysters at the same time.

No thanks.

Rentiers in any just system will inevitably get fucked over by market forces. A perfect example is the 2008 banking crisis. Had the economy been allowed to collapse naturally then the parasites would have shoved off into the poor house in droves. Unfortunately, we live in a monied oligarchy were such things are not allowed to happen. Inevitably there will come a time where so many people become worthless renters, the bottom cannot sustain their profligacy and there will be no salvation for them.

fag

We've been over this before, there's no real difference considering the political impact of the Tru-Left is almost entirely limited to endorsing/supporting "liberal", "succdem", "reformist" or whatever term you want to use politics

You dont need a capitalist to build a factory

Simply because liberals have very successfully locked leftists out of power, at least in most of the West

Things seem to be slowly changing in the UK and France. Melenchon and Corbyn represent the future.

So where are you getting the money to build it from smart guy?
>Simple we round up all the class enemies and use them to build it for free as punishment for their counter-revolutionary crimes!
>Simple we take all the money from the capitalists and use it pay the workers to build factories!

Seems to me like no matter how you slice it, it's the capitalist that gets used to build the factory.

>>you are now evil and have to give that capital to the communist vanguard party who represent the people and the common good according to their own sketchy theories

sounds like kingship

yes, manager(or director) and capital (money and hands of workers) would be enough. But election a manager(or director) from workers, like in Gorbachev's experiments was a disaster.

It's matter of perspective. Either you look at it as a liberal and then any gain is fair (as long as it is legal).

Or you try different perspective and try to achieve correlation between actual work done for society and wealth acquired through it. Then you'll might see instances where people make awful amounts of money just by buying and selling shit with no value added, e.g. Hedge fonds.

>tfw you realise capitalism exists because capitalists are too lazy to work and just want free labor

>Simply because liberals have very successfully locked leftists out of power, at least in most of the West

Leftism is just liberalism (i.e. the desire to free the individual of all forms of "oppression"/control) taken to its logical conclusion, i.e. "the need to work to survive is itself a form of oppression, therefore we need the masses to seize control of the means of production which will inevitably free humanity from this final burden, and the individual will be able to do whatever he wants".

You're just assmad because the fall of the Soviet Union made it pretty clear to the masses that global capitalism/neoliberalism was much more accommodating towards the liberation of the individual than any dream of proleterian revolution

>What makes capitalism human nature?
The fact that every human society has adopted a policy of privately owned means of production in a market economy?

>Socialist revolutions have happened in a dozen countries. So does that mean socialism is human nature too?
But that's Not Real Socialism™, not socialism, right?

Liberalism is only emancipatory for personal desires within the bounds of class society

You can fuck a dude or even tell people you're a fox, but don't you dare protest your stagnant wages or miserable job prospects

This. Besides this many US states are LITERALLY one party states, many of them ruled by de facto hereditary dynasties

capitalism is adhering to natural law. communism is a naively thought up "solution".

>capitalism is adhering to natural law.
When will this meme die? Capitalism relies on the principle of private ownership and there is nothing that naturally entitles you to own land, objects or, in the context of this discussion, the means of production. I'm for a market economy but this idea that it's somehow natural is absurd. It's a social construct, a useful abstraction that helps us organise our resources, just like literally every ideology ever made. There's nothing that makes one more real than any other.

>Liberalism is only emancipatory for personal desires within the bounds of class society

Exactly. "Leftism" (as a general catch-all, I don't want to get stuck in a NUH-UH [X] ISN'T TRUE LEFTISM) i.e. socialism etc just takes the liberal desire one or two steps further and argues that society itself under the current mode of production is oppressive - and therefore the individual can only "truly" be free if capitalism is replaced with socialism.

>"i.e. the need to work to survive is itself a form of oppression,"
That's bullshit though, even if the MoPs would be seized, people would still have to work.

Liberalism is about individual having authority and responsibility over himself, not about class warfare.

>being so economically illiterate that you seriously think communism is something good and viable

markets aren't natural, but they are the outcome of natural phenomenon. humans are predisposed towards private property and to be aggression averse.

Unlike Communism, capitalism didn't start from violent wars or overthrowals

>American "education"

>capitalism didn't start from violent wars or overthrowals
Look mom I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about

>capitalism started from violent wars or overthrowals

What? You better bring up strong arguments because right now you sound very retarded.

Even so it was expected that automation in a socialist society would significantly lessen the labor needed to survive, and combined with goods distribution would free up individuals to pursue much more leisure than they normally would in a capitalist society.

And in other areas socialists reproduced most of the liberal criticisms of 19th/20th society in other areas in how nationalism, religion, etc restricted the autonomy of individuals (i.e. divorce restrictions, strict gender roles, the nuclear/patriarchal family) - except instead of blaming these on "erroneous dogmas of a prior era" like liberals they blamed them on capitalism

Have you never heard of the English, French, or American revolutions? The revolutions of 1848? The conquests of Africa and Asia that left lasting capitalist regimes? How about the Xinhai Revolution?

Just look at the Middle East

Market societies predate all of those conflicts.

There were some quasi-communal economies in Africa (e.g. tribe hunting & gathering), but when they received a pure market economy from their colonizers, there was no major anti-capitalism conflict and nobody reversed it once the colonies ended.

Meanwhile, all Communist nations started from civil war bloodshed, and successful Communist takeovers always resulted in violent enforcement of communism because a large portion of the population refused. Capitalism doesn't need the gulags for the vast majority to support it.

They are all political conflicts at heart. Also private property and commerce were norms in all of these regions since written history.

meant to reply to

>Market societies predate all of those conflicts.
Don't tell me you think a free market equates to capitalism.
>there was no major anti-capitalism conflict
The scramble for Africa wasn't peaceful.
>Capitalism doesn't need the gulags for the vast majority to support it.
That's because capitalism of today is the status quo. The liberals of the past certainly needed violence and repression to keep power against the feudal order.

You could say the Russian and Chinese revolutions were just political conflicts at heart. That's what they were, politically disgruntled agents advocating for a radical change to the status quo.
>Also private property and commerce were norms in all of these regions since written history.
Private property does not equate to capitalism. It only equates to class society.

Well modern "capitalism" is a natural evolution from the free market, which was a natural evolution from trading and commerce since prehistory.

Meanwhile, Communism is a freak of nature that requires war.

Also, the English, French and American revolutions are still primarily political. Where in the declaration of independence does it mention "the implementation of capitalism"? It was already a thing more or less.

>capitalism isn't free market
>capitalism does not equate to private property

Cant you just use the standard definition of capitalism instead of being annoying special snowflakes? Or at least clearly state your definition of capitalism before starting an argument?

>communism was a freak of nature that required war
Like liberal capitalist republics? The french revolution and the wars napoleon waged across the continent ignited liberalism.

Capitalism developed from the burghers increasingly gaining wealth and from there power due to the plunder of the new world and the development in manufacturing. Free markets and trade have existed for tens of thousands of years (trade has probably existed since humanity has existed) yet the modern capitalist class only arose out of the violence of the late 18th century.
>Meanwhile, Communism is a freak of nature that requires war.
Capital requires constant expansion to function. It's unsustainable. And don't talk about wars when some of the bloodiest wars in human history (the world wars, the conquest of Africa, the British subjugation of the Indian subcontinent) were largely fueled by the need for new markets and new riches.

Also, don't lecture me on what is a "freak of nature" you idealist.

>humans are predisposed towards private property
Hunter gatherers and early agrarian societies usually sleept together in large huts, hunters were expected to give the food they hunted to the entire tribe for no monetary gain, same as most other jobs and services. Yes there was some semblance of what was your and what isn't and trade between tribes definitely relied on this concept. But to say humans are "predisposed" towards privat property is dumb, we're just as "predisposed" to sharing and collective ownership.

I didn't say capitalism isn't private property or a free market. Those are simply components that make up the capitalist system.

And I am using the standard definition of capitalism. If you think the ancient slave societies or the old world civilizations were capitalist just because they had a market system, you don't understand capitalism.

In a modern landscape, private property is more natural. You can't assume that people in early agrarian, H/G societies faced the same realities ad the modern people.

In a lower population and low-tech situation, hunter/gatherers had to stick together because they lacked the freedom of private enterprise brought by technology.

Anyways, there is no inherent human preference for private property or collectivism; we just adapt to the situation.

>Market societies predate all of those conflicts.
Markets do not necessarily imply Capitalism.

>In a modern landscape, private property is more natural.
That's my whole point. IN A MODERN LANDSCAPE. Every ideology is a product of the time, an abstraction that only makes sense within a certain context and within the context of the modern world we live in, capitalism makes sense. There's nothing that makes it "inherent" to anything or more "natural".

So when Communists say things like "overthrow Capitalism" and "capitalism is bad," they want to keep the free market and private ownership?

I just lump free market and private ownership with "Capitalism" because that's what Communists typically do.

>Anyways, there is no inherent human preference for private property or collectivism; we just adapt to the situation.
Kind of the point. We just adapt. In our current age of mass abundance, a regimented society with private property is no longer necessary.

Communists don't simply oppose capitalism, they oppose Class society itself from which markets and private property are derived from.

Communist wants to abolish free markets and privat ownership because they are key components to sustaining capitalism.

It's like if someone wants to abolish cars and in their attempt to do so tries to stop car tire manufactures. Then you go in and say that because he protests cars and stop tire manufactures, he must think they're the same thing.