What is inherently morally wrong with possessing capital?

>or Rockefellers, people who have inherited their untold wealth, contribute anything meaningful to society.
There was actually a HUGE problem with the southern states of america having a horrible infection o hook worms that the Rockerfellers combated and effectivly killed the disease

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Sanitary_Commission
rockfound.rockarch.org/eradicating-hookworm
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/how-a-worm-gave-the-south-a-bad-name/

pretty much this. No one makes money solely by themselves. Like do you really want to argue that CEOs work 2000% harder than the average employee?

stuff like a company uses your country to become incredibly powerful so much so that your original country is literally not worth considering anymore when it comes to profits

this is detroit history if i understand

Oh, neat. I didn’t know that.

But I hope my point was still understood. A certain amount of wealth is just decadent and uneccesary. I mean, a billionaire who just buys needless shit like cars should feel bad that he isn’t using his wealth for better purposes.

>Like do you really want to argue that CEOs work 2000% harder than the average employee?
yes. The owners of companies work harder based on the fact that they never dont work. From the moment they wake up till they go to sleep, they have to deal with some bullshit with the company, to the point that even on vacation they have to do shit. this is probably based on some form of mild autism that compels them to work so hard. Youre a complete idiot if you think the minimum wage burger flipper does more work than the CEO of McDonalds

Lots of poor people contribute nothing to society either. Are they immoral for being poor?

Of course not. They just excerise that much more leverage by being that much harder to replace. Nothing immoral about that until force or fraud is used.

now this is just about ethics then

Yes

It's not fair.

So?

Poor people have little to nothing beyond the labor they contribute compared to the wealthy. You can try to get more wealth and contributions out of them, but there won’t be much, and blaming a stone for not giving more water when you squeeze it is kind of stupid.

>muh 2000% harder work
it has literally never been about hard, it's always been about how valuable your work is

There is nothing morally wrong, only ineffectiveness and inefficiency.

Ethics and morals are tied pretty closely user.

him buying cars indirectly employ hundreds, if not thousands of people

>buying a few designer cars keeps that many people employed consistently
maybe 100 of them at best.

do you even know how large the designer car industry is?

youtube.com/watch?v=qRsC43YE1sw

One billionaire can't sustain one industry by himself moron

>there's only one billionaire buying cars in the world
you fucking retard

It seems you hold a lot of misconceptions regarding Socialism....

The general tendency of socialism is not to move towards Complete income equality, but rather to move towards a more equal distribution than in the current state.

Neither does Socialism seek to control individual commodity exchange between individuals, but rather is only concerned with the means of production.

In this case for instance, were it not for the State's internet infrastructure, the protagonist would never have been able to create his online business.

Socialism does not exclude all forms of private enterprise or prevent individuals from forming their own private business, just look at China.

Refer to >him buying cars indirectly
>him
>him

So we need to rob the rich people because it’s worth our time to rob them because they are rich?

These morals are effectively moot since socialism, specifically in the western world, is nothing more than tribalism "gibs me dats" reparations, with none white minority groups banding together to demand, in the name of reparations for past colonial misdeeds, free money from middle class and upper class white people

why dont we just kill the old bag?

>56%
At least read up on your own country's history

>>look at china
Holy fuck dude this does not help your argument at all.

again, why do you keep bringing up irrelevant shit in the face that socailism in the west now has devolved into nothing more than "middle class white people need to give money to brown people"?

IWW is still around though

No, that’s twisting my words.

I’m saying asking poor people to contribute more is a moot point. That doesn’t mean we need to rob the rich. They should feel the need to spend their wealth furthering society though. No one man needs billions and one can live the rest of their life many times over in a beachside mansion with the wealth they have.

I not only do I doubt it’s that much, but as automation increases, the number of people employed by his car hobby is less and less. It becomes harder and harder to justify that level of opulence being a good thing overall as technology develops and labor increasingly is automated.

>continuing to ignore the pathological self hatred inherent in any sort of socialist movement today

So is a poor person who doesn't volunteer their more abundant time at all worse than a rich person who donates extremely small amounts of their abundant money?

new industries will develop, just like every other time anything gets automated

It should. China is the 2nd biggest economy in the world (and likely to eclipse the U.S. soon).

Most of the goods you enjoy in America are produced by a Socialist Economy in China....

>continuing to call anything you don't like as socialism
At least when you comb through twitter for some literally who's antics, at least find a picture of him wearing red so we can pretend he is a socialist

Everything will get automated eventually.

his point is that its literally irrelevant to the thought processes of american nonwhites. you're not american, so you haven't been around american nonwhites and so possible mistakenly think their voting patterns have anything to do with that pic. Half of the nonwhites in this country came after 1980, some random movement that started in 1905 has literally zero bearing on their votes. their decisions are purely tribal, which is at least less delusional than many whites

China is a pretty good example of national socialism. It's a great model. Every day this new path takes China farther away from communism and fixes more of its problems.

This, unironically.

>>continuing to call anything you don't like as socialism
thats not what Im doing though, Im calling out a glaring problem with socialist which they themselves seem intent on ignoring at all cost. Anytime anyone brings this up, you revert to showcasing irrelevent shit to try and dsitract people from the fact that socialism is a complete farce now that is nothing more than self self flagellating white guilt and an economic model that can be summed up as "white middle class people need to give their money to brown people" and it also doesnt help that most of them hate working class white anyway

You can't automate some things. Scarcity will always exist both in resources and some services. Even stupid shit like a shoutout from your favorite YouTube celeb.

If you think most poor people are lazing around, then I question your own biases. Most poor people work to survive user, and have little time. A rich person is so wealthy that he is beyond mere survival concerns.

That’s a big if.

>IWW being reformist at all
American ignorance is truly astounding. IWW accepts anyone.

A hypothetical poor person with lots of time. I'm asking for for the sake of trying to understand the basic principles you're subscribing too here.

>marxists only inhabit first world countries

You have done nothing to show any link to these people and socialism. Hell that picture you posted did nothing as well. Making statements with no evidence is fine, just don't get mad when someone calls you out on it

Youre engaging in sophistry and bringing up irrelevant trivia and are failing horribly to distract from the fact that socialism is now nothing more than "fuck white people" tier lunacy.

Literally nothing. Commies are just robbers trying to convince the plebs that they aren't.

There's nothing inherently wrong with possessing capital, but a lot of people, especially on the Right, flat out deny that money is power and that capitalists very often influence the world in specific directions at everyone else's expense but their own.

>You have done nothing to show any link to these people and socialism

cpusa.org/article/bill-maher-karl-marx-and-identity-politics/

cpusa.org/party_voices/convention-discussion-identity-politics-privilege-the-national-question/

two articles from the communist party of the united states official website arguing the importance of identity politics. Again, why are you choosing to shuck and jive around this issue by bringing up irrelevant trivia about socialism?

Not an argument.

dude, what does that have to do at all with what I and
are saying.

you're trying to ascribe some higher-order motive to socialist movements in the US, when 100% of the time they're just manifestations of racial ressentiment/ tribal instincts against whites.

bernie sanders and the democratic party get 60% of their votes from nonwhites, and nonwhites vote for democrats or socialistic democrats like sanders about 75% of the time. the fact that we're american and you're not should be enough in the first place, you clearly don't understand american racial politics

So what? Their ancestors had the right to accumulate capital, and the right to give it to whomever they wished to. They have the right to keep that money.

Well yeah. If a person had enough wealth to survive, but is still “poor” and has a lot of time he spends all of it lazing around, then yeah, I’d say it’s worse than a rich person donating only a bit of his immense wealth. Some contribution is better than none.

and I should clarify, by socialist movements, I mean popular socialist movements, not weird fringe ones staffed by effete bourgeois, academic whites.

>you clearly don't understand american racial politics

why are you being a coward and running away from the question? why do you think brining up random trivia about socialism will distract anyone from the fact that it is nothing more than "white middle class people need to give their money to brown people" and has a seething resentment of working class whites?

>That said, I am against identity politics much the same as the contributors to LIES, primarily because capital and its contradictions perpetuate these identities.
>Don’t get me wrong: white workers are suffer exploitation and are catching hell with the rest of the working class.
Did you even read the links you posted?

the right keeps going on about soros and rich champaigne socialists donating millions to democrats all the time

Sure it is. But it’s not good. They got their wealth through nothing but providence by being born into it. If they just sit on it and don’t contribute it, what is morally good about that?

Wholly depends on what kind of Right-wing you are talking about.

Contrary to what leftists think defining the right as just entirely fascist is not a good idea.

>That doesn’t mean we need to rob the rich.
Then you're not a communist or a socialist.
I mean, I can think that giving to charity is moral, but that doesn't mean I belie that people who don't give to charity are immoral, nor does it mean that I have the right to take the money of anyone to give it to charity. If you recognize that you have no right to force others to give to charity, stop associating yourself with the people the image is mocking, because you aren't one of them.

Talking as if IWW wanting to be involved in voting patterns is wildly inane and lacks understanding of what IWW is about.

>100% of the time they're just manifestations of racial ressentiment/ tribal instincts against whites.
And yet IWW's experience is proof that that isn't the case

Sanders wasn't running on a socialist platform at all. You might understand American in American politics, but you sure as shit don't understand politics at all.

>cpusa.org/article/bill-maher-karl-marx-and-identity-politics/
good job quoting the meaningless concession part rather than the main body of the argument made, which is that identity politics arent just a meme as someone like Bill Maher would argue. Youre also continuing to avoid the question about why socialist are now nothing more than "fuck white people"

>lose argument
>post a shitty meme
wtf, I love socialism now and hate whitey!

my bad, you're clearly correct. Paco Sanchez and Raj Chandralingam, second generation immigrants whose parents came in the 80s, are clearly principled Marxists learned in the scholarly communistic tradition. fucking tard. these people don't give a shit about you or your politics.

It's not about what is morally good, it's about what is morally bad. Morals aren't completely black-and-white.

>but you sure as shit don't understand politics at all.
you have no room to talk when you cant answer simple questions and revert to shitposting irrelevant trivia. Also, its pretty clear youre an underaged faggot and dont remember what a failure occupy wallstreet was because any white male with an opinion was shouted down in favor of brown women who did nothing but wail about how she needed more food stamps(despite being from a middle class family)

The main thrust of both articles was to claim identity politics is empowered by class warfare. CPUSA literally said "white workers are suffer exploitation and are catching hell with the rest of the working class." not "fuck white people."

I want to beat this man

Throwing insults at me and referring to irrelevant trivia of something in OWS doesn't change the fact that Bernie didn't run on a socialist platform, he was a Eisenhower Republican at worst, a New Deal Democrat at best

I know I’m not a Commie. I’m just saying at a certain point wealthy people should be more benevolent with their riches as there is certainly a point that reaches obscenity and helps no one but themselves.

I’m basically a wishing optimist that hopes people would do more to be nice and help each other. Probably never gonna happen, but I can hope and argue.

>Throwing insults at me
says the faggot that has been doing nothing the entire thread other than throwing out "youre just a stupid american!" tier insults. Youre still avoiding the question btw

>I’m just saying at a certain point wealthy people should be more benevolent with their riches as there is certainly a point that reaches obscenity and helps no one but themselves.
I agree. But we both agree that force should not be used to extract this charity from them, right?

>I propose that the Party mandate that all its members take classes on learning the history of U.S. national oppression and, for lack of a better term, battling white privilege within our ranks.

>A simple and easy way that non-POC comrades can do this immediately is by looking within their organizing space and to see if they’re dominating conversations, committees and other projects. Many POC could benefit if our non-POC comrades took a step back or stepped down enough for POC, especially women of color, to voice concerns, opinions or proposals

yeah, good one shill. Now are you going to address this issue or continue to pretend it doesnt exist while spouting out irrelevant trivia?

Yes I agree. Violence is rarely ever justified (get gassed pedos).

They should be shamed though.

Wast majority of rich people employ others

>Neither does Socialism seek to control individual commodity exchange between individuals,
So, under socialism, I can trade my money for the labor of some guys and then trade the product for some money, or are you lying?

There’s still a quite a few who don’t. Those who are so rich, their vast money makes them even more money.

And again, I’m not going to praise some billionaire for employing a few thousand. Is it good, yeah, but There’s a definite point where the wealth they have is obscene and unneeded as they can live several lives over with it. At that point, they should be more benevolent and giving with it.

>Those who are so rich, their vast money makes them even more money.
What magic is this?

>At that point, they should be more benevolent and giving with it.
A lot of them do
Who decides what is "enough"?

So you want rich people's money to go towards the betterment of society? Their money is already being spent in ways that improve society. No wealthy person just dumps their money in a big vault and locks the door. They either invest the money, buy luxury goods with it, or donate to charity. If they invest their money then they are helping new businesses grow. If they use that money to buy luxuries then that is what allows those industries to exist and employ the people they do.

During the French revolution the city of Lyon rose up in counter-revolution partially because their city was entirely built around silk production and once people started getting their heads chopped off for even looking wealthy the domestic consumption of silk completely dried up.

Yes, automation is getting rid of jobs. However, redistributing wealth doesn't solve the problem that people still wouldn't have jobs. The only way to increase the amount of jobs in our increasingly automated world is to expand the amount of luxury goods. Former luxury goods then become standard and can be used for the betterment of the masses. Look at cell phones, originally only the wealthy could afford them. However, over time increasingly luxury versions were produced which then made normal cell phones a basic commodity. The mobile industry has now created hundreds of millions of jobs as a result.

The only way is forward. If we start focusing on redistributing the wealth then we are taking away strength that we need to forge ahead.

What is inherently wrong with people with guns taking their due share (i.e as much as they want) of your capital if you can't defend yourself?

that would be tyranny

It's immoral.
If I see such actions, I'll get my own gun and shoot those bastards, and they'll go straight to Hell.

>doesn't know the meaning of "inherently"

>he still thinks morality exists

What job do you have, if you don't mind me asking?

But that money could do so much more if it wasn't spent on cars

We are reaching propaganda levels that shouldn't even be possible