Upvote Upvoted 0 Downvote Downvoted
1 2 3 4 5
what r yr politicals
posted in Off Topic
91
#91
6 Frags +

https://i.imgur.com/G1mnUmX.jpg

[img]https://i.imgur.com/G1mnUmX.jpg[/img]
92
#92
-11 Frags +
michael-i'm not reading the communist manifesto. i've already had to read parts for courses and it's bleh. i want to know what you find so acceptable in communism; not what those 150 years thought.

I've mostly just been shitposting so far, but here's an actual thoughtpost (though uncurated)

1. I believe capitalism is inherently exploitative. Not gonna explain why, as thousands of well-regarded pages on the subject already exist.
2. To suggest capitalism is the best economic system possible when the economy has only existed for 200~20000 years (depending on where you wanna start) is optimistic. If you view economics as the efficient sharing of resources, suggesting we developed an optimal solution after such a short time belies a lack of creativity. Communism might not be more efficient, but the current market is unlikely to be optimal either. Therefore, we should be moving away from capitalism.
3. Communism offers an idea of a society that I think is more egalitarian while rewarding work. Under capitalism, work is not tied to income, allowing the existence of classes of people propped up by the working class. The veil of ignorance covers most of my belief here, but in general I think the entire idea of heritable social-class is something we (global we) should be working to move past. Humans are probably smart enough (or will be) to figure out a way to make things fair in the future. The great trend in western society has been away from hierarchy over the past 200 years, and I'd like that to continue. Abolishing states and social class are unlikely in my life-time, but I'd like to start paving the way where possible.
3.5. The current distribution of wealth is dumb. Really the entire idea of money is an inexact abstraction to keep track of who's socially "worthy" of staying alive, and the faster we can move past that the better.

You should finish reading Marx because regardless of if you agree with his solution, his critiques are still relevant today. There's a reason plenty of liberal and right-wing sociologists continue to use his frameworks to understand class structures in capitalist societies. Reading in general is cool, and if nothing else understanding anti-capitalist thought will help you understand capitalism better.

ps tag yrself

https://i.imgur.com/l2JmsML.jpg

[quote=michael-]
i'm not reading the communist manifesto. i've already had to read parts for courses and it's bleh. i want to know what [b]you[/b] find so acceptable in communism; not what those 150 years thought.[/quote]

I've mostly just been shitposting so far, but here's an actual thoughtpost (though uncurated)

1. I believe capitalism is inherently exploitative. Not gonna explain why, as thousands of well-regarded pages on the subject already exist.
2. To suggest capitalism is the best economic system possible when the economy has only existed for 200~20000 years (depending on where you wanna start) is optimistic. If you view economics as the efficient sharing of resources, suggesting we developed an optimal solution after such a short time belies a lack of creativity. Communism might not be more efficient, but the current market is unlikely to be optimal either. Therefore, we should be moving away from capitalism.
3. Communism offers an idea of a society that I think is more egalitarian while rewarding work. Under capitalism, work is not tied to income, allowing the existence of classes of people propped up by the working class. The veil of ignorance covers most of my belief here, but in general I think the entire idea of heritable social-class is something we (global we) should be working to move past. Humans are probably smart enough (or will be) to figure out a way to make things fair in the future. The great trend in western society has been away from hierarchy over the past 200 years, and I'd like that to continue. Abolishing states and social class are unlikely in my life-time, but I'd like to start paving the way where possible.
3.5. The current distribution of wealth is dumb. Really the entire idea of money is an inexact abstraction to keep track of who's socially "worthy" of staying alive, and the faster we can move past that the better.


You should finish reading Marx because regardless of if you agree with his solution, his critiques are still relevant today. There's a reason plenty of liberal and right-wing sociologists continue to use his frameworks to understand class structures in capitalist societies. Reading in general is cool, and if nothing else understanding anti-capitalist thought will help you understand capitalism better.

ps tag yrself
[img]https://i.imgur.com/l2JmsML.jpg[/img]
93
#93
0 Frags +

http://www.politiscales.net/en_US/results/?t0=29&t1=29&p0=12&p1=55&c1=67&m0=26&m1=24&e1=29&e0=14&b0=14&b1=14&j0=24&j1=40&femi=10&s1=10&s0=57&prag=67

[img]http://www.politiscales.net/en_US/results/?t0=29&t1=29&p0=12&p1=55&c1=67&m0=26&m1=24&e1=29&e0=14&b0=14&b1=14&j0=24&j1=40&femi=10&s1=10&s0=57&prag=67
[/img]
94
#94
13 Frags +

https://i.imgur.com/dlkmbDm.png

[img]https://i.imgur.com/dlkmbDm.png[/img]
95
#95
1 Frags +
eeeTo suggest capitalism is the best economic system possible when the economy has only existed for 200~20000 years (depending on where you wanna start) is optimistic. If you view economics as the efficient sharing of resources, suggesting we developed an optimal solution after such a short time belies a lack of creativity. Communism might not be more efficient, but the current market is unlikely to be optimal either. Therefore, we should be moving away from capitalism.

So we should move from capitalism to what exactly? Your entire argument is bashing capitalism without promoting a true alternative. You're using wishy-washy words like might and unlikely so you can skate around not having to name a true alternative. We cannot move away from one system without moving to another. Provide a solution rather than just complaining because you aren't fixing problems by saying shit sucks.

[quote=eee]To suggest capitalism is the best economic system possible when the economy has only existed for 200~20000 years (depending on where you wanna start) is optimistic. If you view economics as the efficient sharing of resources, suggesting we developed an optimal solution after such a short time belies a lack of creativity. Communism might not be more efficient, but the current market is unlikely to be optimal either. Therefore, we should be moving away from capitalism.
[/quote]

So we should move from capitalism to what exactly? Your entire argument is bashing capitalism without promoting a true alternative. You're using wishy-washy words like might and unlikely so you can skate around not having to name a true alternative. We cannot move away from one system without moving to another. Provide a solution rather than just complaining because you aren't fixing problems by saying shit sucks.
96
#96
8 Frags +

As you can clearly see, anime is the greatest source of evil.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/294515169629831168/379102214246891521/j7hzohhr2chz.png

As you can clearly see, anime is the greatest source of evil.

[img]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/294515169629831168/379102214246891521/j7hzohhr2chz.png[/img]
97
#97
1 Frags +
tsar

tbh i wrote a ~1000 word response explaining how the entirety of my post pretty clearly explains what I believe
but i kinda felt like you wouldn't understand that one either
reread the post im replying to
then read anything about communism
and think critically how communism can be characterized as a reaction to capitalism rather than an independently developed system

[quote=tsar][/quote]

tbh i wrote a ~1000 word response explaining how the entirety of my post pretty clearly explains what I believe
but i kinda felt like you wouldn't understand that one either
reread the post im replying to
then read anything about communism
and think critically how communism can be characterized as a reaction to capitalism rather than an independently developed system
98
#98
10 Frags +

https://i.redd.it/uwiyjie7ubjz.jpg

[img]https://i.redd.it/uwiyjie7ubjz.jpg[/img]
99
#99
1 Frags +
eeesnip

how the hell is unabomber leftist

[quote=eee]snip[/quote]
how the hell is unabomber leftist
100
#100
8 Frags +

Lemme help you EEE.

We live in a society where it is thought that almost anything is possible. We can think of a time when we might live on the Moon or Mars, and think that that time is relatively close. Fusion reactors, growing organs in labs to prolong our lives, curing cancer, having plastic surgery to give myself two penises. All of these things are possible and likely will be possible within the next 30-40 years.

But as soon as somebody suggests that maybe we ought to change the way production is handled... Nope! Not possible sorry, can't be done.

The whole point of Marxian economic thought is that presently you have private persons owning the means that are producing goods for a whole society - as production often crosses international borders it can't even be argued that it's even for one society in particular. Those individuals then in turn reap whatever rewards there are for themselves, when you could end the contradiction between private ownership over social production, by socializing the production itself so that society as a whole owns the means which allow the society to exist in the first place, rather than private individuals who serve no real function in particular.

You can see this contradiction in capitalism because there are a plethora of homes, but still homeless, or more than enough food, but still there is hunger. Ending the private person's control over that production would allow society as a whole to produce them in abundance. The reason for this contradiction's existence is clear enough. If you produce a good to the point where everybody has it - it loses all value, and as such, there is no point in producing it. That's why for example the Ag Bureau in the U.S. spends billions of dollars a year storing food in warehouses and paying farmers subsidies *not* to farm certain parcels of land - because the supply must remain low enough that there is some demand within the market that is not met to keep farming profitable.

Lemme help you EEE.


We live in a society where it is thought that almost anything is possible. We can think of a time when we might live on the Moon or Mars, and think that that time is relatively close. Fusion reactors, growing organs in labs to prolong our lives, curing cancer, having plastic surgery to give myself two penises. All of these things are possible and likely will be possible within the next 30-40 years.

But as soon as somebody suggests that maybe we ought to change the way production is handled... Nope! Not possible sorry, can't be done.

The whole point of Marxian economic thought is that presently you have private persons owning the means that are producing goods for a whole society - as production often crosses international borders it can't even be argued that it's even for one society in particular. Those individuals then in turn reap whatever rewards there are for themselves, when you could end the contradiction between private ownership over social production, by socializing the production itself so that society as a whole owns the means which allow the society to exist in the first place, rather than private individuals who serve no real function in particular.

You can see this contradiction in capitalism because there are a plethora of homes, but still homeless, or more than enough food, but still there is hunger. Ending the private person's control over that production would allow society as a whole to produce them in abundance. The reason for this contradiction's existence is clear enough. If you produce a good to the point where everybody has it - it loses all value, and as such, there is no point in producing it. That's why for example the Ag Bureau in the U.S. spends billions of dollars a year storing food in warehouses and paying farmers subsidies *not* to farm certain parcels of land - because the supply must remain low enough that there is some demand within the market that is not met to keep farming profitable.
101
#101
4 Frags +
Marxist communist stuff.

Marxist is an actual marxist? :o

i'm not against that.

distribute heals equally

[quote=Marxist] communist stuff.[/quote]
Marxist is an actual marxist? :o

i'm not against that.

distribute heals equally
102
#102
3 Frags +
SherwoodfanMarxist communist stuff.Marxist is an actual marxist? :o

i'm not against that.

distribute heals equally

funny that this is a terrible idea both in terms of heals and in terms of wealth

[quote=Sherwoodfan][quote=Marxist] communist stuff.[/quote]
Marxist is an actual marxist? :o

i'm not against that.

distribute heals equally[/quote]
funny that this is a terrible idea both in terms of heals and in terms of wealth
103
#103
10 Frags +

Actually medic in TF2 is the perfect communist - as contrary to the comic book version of "everybody is equal" communism's maxim is based on the biblical quote from Acts (if you're curious 34: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35: And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.). "From each according to ability, to each according to need" (Marx in the Gotha Program) thus the medic, who has the ability to heal, ought to distribute them to where the need is greatest ;) In general doing so should result in a pretty good performance. One could argue poor medic play is often the result of putting heals where they aren't most needed kinda like capitalism ;)

Actually medic in TF2 is the perfect communist - as contrary to the comic book version of "everybody is equal" communism's maxim is based on the biblical quote from Acts (if you're curious 34: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35: And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.). "From each according to ability, to each according to need" (Marx in the [i]Gotha Program[/i]) thus the medic, who has the ability to heal, ought to distribute them to where the need is greatest ;) In general doing so should result in a pretty good performance. One could argue poor medic play is often the result of putting heals where they aren't most needed kinda like capitalism ;)
104
#104
5 Frags +

this thread is still going on

https://i.gyazo.com/67c995beeec888ed4d86f871650f9b19.png

this thread is still going on

[img]https://i.gyazo.com/67c995beeec888ed4d86f871650f9b19.png[/img]
105
#105
2 Frags +

I think this is relevant here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IXrOCykSCw

I think this is relevant here.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IXrOCykSCw[/youtube]
106
#106
-8 Frags +

Its funny how the members of the communist party in any time they governed a country always ended up deciding they were the ones with the biggest needs and things should be distributed to them.

https://youtu.be/waoEyjE_dtU?t=2750

Its funny how the members of the communist party in any time they governed a country always ended up deciding they were the ones with the biggest needs and things should be distributed to them.

https://youtu.be/waoEyjE_dtU?t=2750
107
#107
0 Frags +
MarxistActually medic in TF2 is the perfect communist - as contrary to the comic book version of "everybody is equal" communism's maxim is based on the biblical quote from Acts (if you're curious 34: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35: And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.). "From each according to ability, to each according to need" (Marx in the Gotha Program) thus the medic, who has the ability to heal, ought to distribute them to where the need is greatest ;) In general doing so should result in a pretty good performance. One could argue poor medic play is often the result of putting heals where they aren't most needed kinda like capitalism ;)

What would happen if medics could heal themselves?

[quote=Marxist]Actually medic in TF2 is the perfect communist - as contrary to the comic book version of "everybody is equal" communism's maxim is based on the biblical quote from Acts (if you're curious 34: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35: And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.). "From each according to ability, to each according to need" (Marx in the [i]Gotha Program[/i]) thus the medic, who has the ability to heal, ought to distribute them to where the need is greatest ;) In general doing so should result in a pretty good performance. One could argue poor medic play is often the result of putting heals where they aren't most needed kinda like capitalism ;)[/quote]
What would happen if medics could heal themselves?
108
#108
0 Frags +
MelonTFthis thread is still going on

https://i.gyazo.com/67c995beeec888ed4d86f871650f9b19.png

this thread has been a pretty good read for when ive been bored in class

[quote=MelonTF]this thread is still going on

[img]https://i.gyazo.com/67c995beeec888ed4d86f871650f9b19.png[/img][/quote]
this thread has been a pretty good read for when ive been bored in class
109
#109
3 Frags +
hrMarxistActually medic in TF2 is the perfect communist - as contrary to the comic book version of "everybody is equal" communism's maxim is based on the biblical quote from Acts (if you're curious 34: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35: And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.). "From each according to ability, to each according to need" (Marx in the Gotha Program) thus the medic, who has the ability to heal, ought to distribute them to where the need is greatest ;) In general doing so should result in a pretty good performance. One could argue poor medic play is often the result of putting heals where they aren't most needed kinda like capitalism ;)What would happen if medics could heal themselves?

because medic is incapable of winning the game alone because of his skillset, he is still reliant on the abilities of each of the other classes in the game. thus, a majority of the medics heals would still be distributed to the team, while each member of the team contributes some portion of their unique abilites back to the survival and success of the medic. now, it's important to realize that not all classes are created with perfectly equivalent worth - most players would agree that a scout pick hurts your team less than a medic pick. however, most players would agree that losing any one piece of a team represents a significant disadvantage. from this, the maxim "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is borne out.

[quote=hr][quote=Marxist]Actually medic in TF2 is the perfect communist - as contrary to the comic book version of "everybody is equal" communism's maxim is based on the biblical quote from Acts (if you're curious 34: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35: And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.). "From each according to ability, to each according to need" (Marx in the [i]Gotha Program[/i]) thus the medic, who has the ability to heal, ought to distribute them to where the need is greatest ;) In general doing so should result in a pretty good performance. One could argue poor medic play is often the result of putting heals where they aren't most needed kinda like capitalism ;)[/quote]
What would happen if medics could heal themselves?[/quote]

because medic is incapable of winning the game alone because of his skillset, he is still reliant on the abilities of each of the other classes in the game. thus, a majority of the medics heals would still be distributed to the team, while each member of the team contributes some portion of their unique abilites back to the survival and success of the medic. now, it's important to realize that not all classes are created with perfectly equivalent worth - most players would agree that a scout pick hurts your team less than a medic pick. however, most players would agree that losing any one piece of a team represents a significant disadvantage. from this, the maxim "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is borne out.
110
#110
2 Frags +

https://i.imgur.com/8rqQyPi.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/8rqQyPi.jpg
111
#111
-2 Frags +
all the fuckin commiescommunism > capitalism

I'm not some political nerd like you gamers, but the way I see it the production isn't socialized because the products aren't socialized. They're sold individually to individuals, not socially to societies. If production were socialized, that would necessitate that the needs and wants of the people would be social rather than individual. And ultimately, the individual should be who these systems work to benefit, not the society, because the one thing that can't be socialized is happiness. Which is the one thing communism, at least as I understand, and how I've seen it argued for again and again just ignores: a person's wants.

And so the question I would pose to you is: How does communism do a better job at meeting the individual's wants than capitalism? What is the mechanism by which communism is better at this than capitalism, and moreover, how would it be implemented?

Do you just give everyone whatever they want? Or do they have to participate in production to earn it? And if the latter is the case, how is this functionally any different to capitalism as implemented in a state with some or all socialized basic necessities, like, say, the modern developed world? Or are wants something that will simply stop mattering when we seize the means of production?

[quote=all the fuckin commies]communism > capitalism[/quote]

I'm not some political nerd like you gamers, but the way I see it the production isn't socialized because the products aren't socialized. They're sold individually to individuals, not socially to societies. If production were socialized, that would necessitate that the needs and wants of the people would be social rather than individual. And ultimately, the individual should be who these systems work to benefit, not the society, because the one thing that can't be socialized is happiness. Which is the one thing communism, at least as I understand, and how I've seen it argued for again and again just ignores: [b]a person's wants[/b].

And so the question I would pose to you is: How does communism do a better job at meeting the individual's wants than capitalism? What is the mechanism by which communism is better at this than capitalism, and moreover, how would it be implemented?

Do you just give everyone whatever they want? Or do they have to participate in production to earn it? And if the latter is the case, how is this functionally any different to capitalism as implemented in a state with some or all socialized basic necessities, like, say, the modern developed world? Or are wants something that will simply stop mattering when we seize the means of production?
112
#112
5 Frags +

@ghadillli

You ask a lot of complicated questions so I'll make my very best attempt at keeping this brief because there are better sources to get this sort of information than some dude on the internet who likes TF2 a lot.

1. Social Production

Many items are indeed produced to be sold to individuals (or individual entities), but the point is that they are consumed widely by huge masses of people. Take for example the number of companies that produce bread. Flowers Foods produce *most* of the commonly consumed types of bread from Wonder, Sunbeam, and Bunny to name the 3 most common. You don't have a guy baking bread for the people in his town to buy, you have absolutely massive corporations controlling companies top to bottom not to produce bread for sales to individuals but which are in fact producing bread for an entire society (that is in the example above, anybody who eats sandwich bread). The demand for bread is relatively inelastic, and as such you have a *pretty* good idea how much bread is going to be bought in a given year, and so you can produce bread regardless of which individuals may or may not buy it, because you know in advance how much you ought to make to maximize your profit. The individual consumer ultimately matters very little in this exchange. This already exists in a wide array of places - such as public roads. Yes, individuals certainly do use them, but the society as a whole has decided to lay down the road for its own benefit because it would be extraordinarily expensive for private individuals to lay down and maintain a road on their own - and then prevent other people from using it, as such we have *way* more roads than if roads were produced only for profit and *most* people would agree that's a good thing.

2. Post-Scarcity

For the Communist society the idea is to overproduce goods in such quantities that they are made without any real value, in essence to achieve post-scarcity. That is to say, to produce goods in such abundance that they have no value in trade, because you could just go and get more if you needed it. One's working or not doesn't matter because the goods *will* be produced one way or another by those who are so inclined to do so. This is achievable because many of the most advanced nations already have the capability to overproduce goods to such an extent that they lose most of their value - there is simply a choice being made not to do so because that prevents profit from being made. Then, once the "wow we produced *way* too much level" has been reached or extrapolated from study, you just produce some approximation to that maximum and call it a day.

3. "Wants" and Commodity Fetishism

"Wants' in capitalist society are heavily influenced by an ideological phenomena which Marx called "commodity fetishism" in that, for the purposes of selling certain commodities, they are imbued, both by the seller, and the buyer in his/her own mind, with special mystical qualities which they do not in reality posses. Everybody has experienced the joy of finally buying X item that you really wanted only to find out you've been hoodwinked or were misinformed; ultimately having imbued the commodity with properties it did not in fact have. Due to overproduction, commodity fetishism is greatly reduced because of the availability of the produce itself - there's nothing special about that coke you're about to drink because you can just go and have another later, etc. You can see this scenario play out daily in your own life - that which can easily be gotten does not elicit the same fetishistic excitement as those things which are consumed as special treats or only gotten rarely.

@ghadillli

You ask a lot of complicated questions so I'll make my very best attempt at keeping this brief because there are better sources to get this sort of information than some dude on the internet who likes TF2 a lot.

1. Social Production

Many items are indeed produced to be sold to individuals (or individual entities), but the point is that they are consumed widely by huge masses of people. Take for example the number of companies that produce bread. Flowers Foods produce *most* of the commonly consumed types of bread from Wonder, Sunbeam, and Bunny to name the 3 most common. You don't have a guy baking bread for the people in his town to buy, you have absolutely massive corporations controlling companies top to bottom not to produce bread for sales to individuals but which are in fact producing bread for an entire society (that is in the example above, anybody who eats sandwich bread). The demand for bread is relatively inelastic, and as such you have a *pretty* good idea how much bread is going to be bought in a given year, and so you can produce bread regardless of which individuals may or may not buy it, because you know in advance how much you ought to make to maximize your profit. The individual consumer ultimately matters very little in this exchange. This already exists in a wide array of places - such as public roads. Yes, individuals certainly do use them, but the society as a whole has decided to lay down the road for its own benefit because it would be extraordinarily expensive for private individuals to lay down and maintain a road on their own - and then prevent other people from using it, as such we have *way* more roads than if roads were produced only for profit and *most* people would agree that's a good thing.

2. Post-Scarcity

For the Communist society the idea is to overproduce goods in such quantities that they are made without any real value, in essence to achieve post-scarcity. That is to say, to produce goods in such abundance that they have no value in trade, because you could just go and get more if you needed it. One's working or not doesn't matter because the goods *will* be produced one way or another by those who are so inclined to do so. This is achievable because many of the most advanced nations already have the capability to overproduce goods to such an extent that they lose most of their value - there is simply a choice being made not to do so because that prevents profit from being made. Then, once the "wow we produced *way* too much level" has been reached or extrapolated from study, you just produce some approximation to that maximum and call it a day.

3. "Wants" and Commodity Fetishism

"Wants' in capitalist society are heavily influenced by an ideological phenomena which Marx called "commodity fetishism" in that, for the purposes of selling certain commodities, they are imbued, both by the seller, and the buyer in his/her own mind, with special mystical qualities which they do not in reality posses. Everybody has experienced the joy of finally buying X item that you really wanted only to find out you've been hoodwinked or were misinformed; ultimately having imbued the commodity with properties it did not in fact have. Due to overproduction, commodity fetishism is greatly reduced because of the availability of the produce itself - there's nothing special about that coke you're about to drink because you can just go and have another later, etc. You can see this scenario play out daily in your own life - that which can easily be gotten does not elicit the same fetishistic excitement as those things which are consumed as special treats or only gotten rarely.
113
#113
-3 Frags +
Marxist

i cannot read these long posts man, i have hit my head many times and i am slightly inbred please be patient with me. id appreciate it if you could simply list your critiques of capitalism. i await your response, until then i will be playing with my toys

[quote=Marxist][/quote]
i cannot read these long posts man, i have hit my head many times and i am slightly inbred please be patient with me. id appreciate it if you could simply list your critiques of capitalism. i await your response, until then i will be playing with my toys
114
#114
4 Frags +

kev i'll break it down as simply as possible for you here. capitalism is driven by profit. profit, at it's most basic level, is one person taking something from another person for their own gain. this is, in the view of people who are left of liberal, a bad thing for humanity. it would be better if things weren't driven by a need for profit, and if economic inequality wasn't so massive a gap.

marxist's post lays out some specific problems:

-markets deliberately underproducing a good to drive the price of it up (artificial scarcity)
-advertising's negative effect on consumer awareness through manipulation.

and explains how those problems could be solved in a communist state. there are lots of other issues with capitalism, but i don't want to make this post too long. if you want a more comprehensive list i'll try to make one, although i'm less well read on capitalist critique than marxist by a long shot

kev i'll break it down as simply as possible for you here. capitalism is driven by profit. profit, at it's most basic level, is one person taking something from another person for their own gain. this is, in the view of people who are left of liberal, a bad thing for humanity. it would be better if things weren't driven by a need for profit, and if economic inequality wasn't so massive a gap.

marxist's post lays out some specific problems:

-markets deliberately underproducing a good to drive the price of it up (artificial scarcity)
-advertising's negative effect on consumer awareness through manipulation.

and explains how those problems could be solved in a communist state. there are lots of other issues with capitalism, but i don't want to make this post too long. if you want a more comprehensive list i'll try to make one, although i'm less well read on capitalist critique than marxist by a long shot
115
#115
-1 Frags +

5 things for marxist

1 tell me why the ussr failed and why it would it have worked if it had been done your way. im not trying to be a smartass i genuinely dont know the history

2 socialism isnt a solution, its a machine that perpetuates poverty. taking from rich and giving to the poor, explain why this inefficient process would work if it was repeated 100x over, 1000x? meaning year after year

3 authoritarian economies don't encourage entrepreneurs. explain why this is okay

4 supply and demand forces all become artificial, explain me why this is okay

5 china's government intentionally makes their currency less valuable to increase their selling power. lets say after 100's of years of taking from rich and giving to poor and devaluing your currency, explain why shit wont hit the fan

if your response is long i ask you to include fun pictures and diagrams so i can follow along

my parents said if i want to post on this website i have to give this disclaimer in the spoiler every time

Show Content
Attention all visitors of this profile:

This child is SEVERELY autistic.

Do not make loud noises near him.

Do not shine bright lights near him.

Do not touch him or any of his toys.

Doing any of the above may set him off on an autistic rampage that could endanger the lives of many
5 things for marxist

1 tell me why the ussr failed and why it would it have worked if it had been done your way. im not trying to be a smartass i genuinely dont know the history

2 socialism isnt a solution, its a machine that perpetuates poverty. taking from rich and giving to the poor, explain why this inefficient process would work if it was repeated 100x over, 1000x? meaning year after year

3 authoritarian economies don't encourage entrepreneurs. explain why this is okay

4 supply and demand forces all become artificial, explain me why this is okay

5 china's government intentionally makes their currency less valuable to increase their selling power. lets say after 100's of years of taking from rich and giving to poor and devaluing your currency, explain why shit wont hit the fan

if your response is long i ask you to include fun pictures and diagrams so i can follow along

my parents said if i want to post on this website i have to give this disclaimer in the spoiler every time
[spoiler]Attention all visitors of this profile:

This child is SEVERELY autistic.

Do not make loud noises near him.

Do not shine bright lights near him.

Do not touch him or any of his toys.

Doing any of the above may set him off on an autistic rampage that could endanger the lives of many[/spoiler]
116
#116
6 Frags +

1. The USSR "question" as it were is extremely complicated. On the one hand, you have a society whose GDP expanded at an incredible rate post civil war (over 1,500% in the space of 20 years) and a corresponding incredible reduction in illiteracy and poverty, and on the other hand you have the completely self-inflicted wounds of the failure to collectivize agriculture, what I like to call the Internyet problem (Soviet computer scientists - who dubbed themselves then Cybernetics technicians) plotted out how to create a network of computer systems using phone lines in the 1950s and set about working out how such a thing may be done - it actually caused a very real crisis within the CIA and NSA in trying to figure out a way to counter the untold amount of influence and productivity that such a thing would create - however the entire project was sabotaged by the Soviet military, from the stagnation and reliance on oil that came in the late 70s and 80s.

If one wanted to fix what the "main" problems for Soviet economic development were it was these as follows: truncated access to the international markets due to being an international pariah (outside pressure), failure on the part of the Soviet government to make *most* of the nomenclatura (government officials) accountable for misdeeds and failures, failure on the part of the Central Government to ameliorate conflict between government agencies (the conflicts between the statistical bureau TsSU and GOSPLAN are legendary and the repercussions were felt throughout Soviet society), and an over-centralized government in general.

The primary cause of the collapse of the USSR however, was the stagnation and lack of faith in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to continue leading. For example in today's China, while life isn't perfect, *most* people have at least some amount of faith that the Chinese Communist Party and its 7 subsidiary/fraternal parties that rule China have *some* idea what they're doing. As such it's unlikely that that government will collapse given that it's fairly easy to point out the improvements in Chinese living standards for a huge amount of people over the last several decades. The Soviet Union *was* able to do the same until the 1980s, when suddenly bread lines began to form, Chernobyl exploded, and the Soviet Army that had defeated Nazi Germany failed to achieve victory in Afghanistan. As such there was a massive and sudden loss of faith in the CPSU that lead to there being fertile ground for the staging of a coup that overthrew the Soviet government.

How that could've been "fixed" is mostly just a guessing game and hypotheticals that I don't really have much of a desire to get into because it's just pissing into the wind really. All there is to do is to understand what the failures/mistakes were.

2. Socialism "taking" from the rich

I fail to see how a redistribution of wealth isn't an engine for growth - increasing the wealth of the majority of one's economy causes a spike in demand (demand side economics) that fuels growth out of hand. Again though, the goal of Socialism/Communism is not a *completely* equal society where everybody makes the same - it's about *access* to the produce of society being equal, not necessarily having all the same stuff.

3. People do all sorts of stuff for all sorts of reasons. The Soviet Nuclear Program prior to 1937 (when they shifted from civilian power applications to weapons) was highly advanced, as were their RADAR, rocketry, and aero industries; not to mention other technological and scientific achievements. I should point out that *many* times in capitalist societies people who actually invent things aren't greatly rewarded for doing so, as the intellectual property is often retained by the company itself - granted you may receive a raise or perks - but the company will by and large maintain the lion's share of the profits from your invention - people make cool shit because they want to make cool shit, often without the motivation of becoming rich. Just look at all the things people have made and done for TF2 with minimal expectations (or none) of being paid back. I should also point out that *most* work environments the world over aren't exactly democratic - but still production and advancements are made, and entrepreneurial activity continues within them.

4. Supply and Demand still exist, but you simply ignore the prospect of making profit. See in a standard supply-demand graph you attempt to find "equilibrium" which is the point at which supply and demand meet at an optimal spot for an optimal rate of profit (if making a profit is possible to begin with). The *cost* of overproduction is that you take a net-loss on this production for the producer - but since states can gather money by taxation, borrowing, printing money, bonds, and myriad other means, they don't have to care whether or not they take a net-loss on production. This will in turn, on the monetary side, cause inflation (which is why most socialist economies have very high inflation rates). This isn't a problem so long as you carefully manage the situation so as not to cause hyper-inflation or come up with other effective means for distributing produce. Very large companies do the same by selling stock to temporarily raise their cash flow to enable them to sell goods at a net-loss to themselves, or once they corner a market they "take it back" by selling some related piece at an artificially high rate - Caterpillar machine parts (vs. the machine which is sold at a net loss) or an Xbox 1 (which is sold to the user at a net loss to Microsoft) and its games (which are inflated to a massive amount to make up for the loss on the console). A socialist state engages in the same behavior, but they use other means (for example in the USSR and contemporary Venezuela they used oil revenues to finance the net loss - which works just great until oil prices suddenly collapse). They key is to not get caught with your hand in the cookie jar - which is extremely hard to do, but not outside of the realm of possibility (for example Norway does much the same with its oil revenue but they diversified state interests enough to not wind up in an economic cataclysm when oil prices fell).

5. That's part and parcel of a trade oriented monetary policy. A "strong dollar" only helps if you intend to buy lots of stuff from other people - but "strong" sounds good. When you have a significant portion of the economy which is operating on the government's bill, or is being sold on the international market (at a higher price than could be sold at home) a weak currency has massive benefits because you obtain "stronger" currency that you can use on the international market with all of the benefits that it brings, while at the same time ensuring you sell more of your goods abroad. The only time it can hurt you is if your country is incapable of producing certain goods and can't obtain sufficient foreign currency reserves to compensate for this lack.

That situation played out in the USSR throughout its history - in particular post 1927, when the five year plans called for massive industrial projects, but the USSR itself didn't have the means or skilled tradesmen required for such industrialization, *nor* did it have foreign currency reserves to use to bring in skilled technicians and expensive foreign tech, so what they did instead was pay in gold bullion and national treasures. A tactic that becomes less and less effective with time, as gold flooding international markets reduces the price of gold, and a nation only has so many national treasures to pawn for foreign currency.

Again you could also print enough money (devaluing your currency) to cause hyper-inflation which is bad, but China doesn't appear to be anywhere near that their goal appears to simply make sure that their currency is weaker than the Euro and the Dollar.

1. The USSR "question" as it were is extremely complicated. On the one hand, you have a society whose GDP expanded at an incredible rate post civil war (over 1,500% in the space of 20 years) and a corresponding incredible reduction in illiteracy and poverty, and on the other hand you have the completely self-inflicted wounds of the failure to collectivize agriculture, what I like to call the Internyet problem (Soviet computer scientists - who dubbed themselves then Cybernetics technicians) plotted out how to create a network of computer systems using phone lines in the 1950s and set about working out how such a thing may be done - it actually caused a very real crisis within the CIA and NSA in trying to figure out a way to counter the untold amount of influence and productivity that such a thing would create - however the entire project was sabotaged by the Soviet military, from the stagnation and reliance on oil that came in the late 70s and 80s.

If one wanted to fix what the "main" problems for Soviet economic development were it was these as follows: truncated access to the international markets due to being an international pariah (outside pressure), failure on the part of the Soviet government to make *most* of the nomenclatura (government officials) accountable for misdeeds and failures, failure on the part of the Central Government to ameliorate conflict between government agencies (the conflicts between the statistical bureau TsSU and GOSPLAN are legendary and the repercussions were felt throughout Soviet society), and an over-centralized government in general.

The primary cause of the collapse of the USSR however, was the stagnation and lack of faith in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to continue leading. For example in today's China, while life isn't perfect, *most* people have at least some amount of faith that the Chinese Communist Party and its 7 subsidiary/fraternal parties that rule China have *some* idea what they're doing. As such it's unlikely that that government will collapse given that it's fairly easy to point out the improvements in Chinese living standards for a huge amount of people over the last several decades. The Soviet Union *was* able to do the same until the 1980s, when suddenly bread lines began to form, Chernobyl exploded, and the Soviet Army that had defeated Nazi Germany failed to achieve victory in Afghanistan. As such there was a massive and sudden loss of faith in the CPSU that lead to there being fertile ground for the staging of a coup that overthrew the Soviet government.

How that could've been "fixed" is mostly just a guessing game and hypotheticals that I don't really have much of a desire to get into because it's just pissing into the wind really. All there is to do is to understand what the failures/mistakes were.

2. Socialism "taking" from the rich

I fail to see how a redistribution of wealth isn't an engine for growth - increasing the wealth of the majority of one's economy causes a spike in demand (demand side economics) that fuels growth out of hand. Again though, the goal of Socialism/Communism is not a *completely* equal society where everybody makes the same - it's about *access* to the produce of society being equal, not necessarily having all the same stuff.

3. People do all sorts of stuff for all sorts of reasons. The Soviet Nuclear Program prior to 1937 (when they shifted from civilian power applications to weapons) was highly advanced, as were their RADAR, rocketry, and aero industries; not to mention other technological and scientific achievements. I should point out that *many* times in capitalist societies people who actually invent things aren't greatly rewarded for doing so, as the intellectual property is often retained by the company itself - granted you may receive a raise or perks - but the company will by and large maintain the lion's share of the profits from your invention - people make cool shit because they want to make cool shit, often without the motivation of becoming rich. Just look at all the things people have made and done for TF2 with minimal expectations (or none) of being paid back. I should also point out that *most* work environments the world over aren't exactly democratic - but still production and advancements are made, and entrepreneurial activity continues within them.


4. Supply and Demand still exist, but you simply ignore the prospect of making profit. See in a standard supply-demand graph you attempt to find "equilibrium" which is the point at which supply and demand meet at an optimal spot for an optimal rate of profit (if making a profit is possible to begin with). The *cost* of overproduction is that you take a net-loss on this production for the producer - but since states can gather money by taxation, borrowing, printing money, bonds, and myriad other means, they don't have to care whether or not they take a net-loss on production. This will in turn, on the monetary side, cause inflation (which is why most socialist economies have very high inflation rates). This isn't a problem so long as you carefully manage the situation so as not to cause hyper-inflation or come up with other effective means for distributing produce. Very large companies do the same by selling stock to temporarily raise their cash flow to enable them to sell goods at a net-loss to themselves, or once they corner a market they "take it back" by selling some related piece at an artificially high rate - Caterpillar machine parts (vs. the machine which is sold at a net loss) or an Xbox 1 (which is sold to the user at a net loss to Microsoft) and its games (which are inflated to a massive amount to make up for the loss on the console). A socialist state engages in the same behavior, but they use other means (for example in the USSR and contemporary Venezuela they used oil revenues to finance the net loss - which works just great until oil prices suddenly collapse). They key is to not get caught with your hand in the cookie jar - which is extremely hard to do, but not outside of the realm of possibility (for example Norway does much the same with its oil revenue but they diversified state interests enough to not wind up in an economic cataclysm when oil prices fell).

5. That's part and parcel of a trade oriented monetary policy. A "strong dollar" only helps if you intend to buy lots of stuff from other people - but "strong" sounds good. When you have a significant portion of the economy which is operating on the government's bill, or is being sold on the international market (at a higher price than could be sold at home) a weak currency has massive benefits because you obtain "stronger" currency that you can use on the international market with all of the benefits that it brings, while at the same time ensuring you sell more of your goods abroad. The only time it can hurt you is if your country is incapable of producing certain goods and can't obtain sufficient foreign currency reserves to compensate for this lack.

That situation played out in the USSR throughout its history - in particular post 1927, when the five year plans called for massive industrial projects, but the USSR itself didn't have the means or skilled tradesmen required for such industrialization, *nor* did it have foreign currency reserves to use to bring in skilled technicians and expensive foreign tech, so what they did instead was pay in gold bullion and national treasures. A tactic that becomes less and less effective with time, as gold flooding international markets reduces the price of gold, and a nation only has so many national treasures to pawn for foreign currency.

Again you could also print enough money (devaluing your currency) to cause hyper-inflation which is bad, but China doesn't appear to be anywhere near that their goal appears to simply make sure that their currency is weaker than the Euro and the Dollar.
117
#117
2 Frags +

https://pics.me.me/arson-is-legal-and-its-the-only-way-to-get-1732798.png

[img]https://pics.me.me/arson-is-legal-and-its-the-only-way-to-get-1732798.png[/img]
118
#118
-4 Frags +

alright man, all im going to say is that authoritarian leadership has never and will never work long term because there are too many shitters like me who will not play along. you cant tame the freedom of some people. its like trying to domesticate a bunch of lions. some of them dont care they just want to be a lion and do lion things; freedom.

all too easily, just a few bad cogs in the machine and the whole process slows to where its no longer worth while. it kindof makes me think of a bottleneck effect

at the end of the day, however much you choose to meticulously fine tune the machine, i will be there. to fuck it up for everyone

idk how are u going to debunk that, but ill be very impressed if you can

with that said unless marx has a good rebuttal i think the thread is nearing gg

Show Content
alright man, all im going to say is that authoritarian leadership has never and will never work long term because there are too many shitters like me who will not play along. you cant tame the freedom of some people. its like trying to domesticate a bunch of lions. some of them dont care they just want to be a lion and do lion things; freedom.

all too easily, just a few bad cogs in the machine and the whole process slows to where its no longer worth while. it kindof makes me think of a bottleneck effect

at the end of the day, however much you choose to meticulously fine tune the machine, i will be there. to fuck it up for everyone

idk how are u going to debunk that, but ill be very impressed if you can

with that said unless marx has a good rebuttal i think the thread is nearing gg

[spoiler][img]https://i.imgur.com/rfFmT1o.png[/img][/spoiler]
119
#119
-6 Frags +

i think this is gg, i now pronounce this thread resolved raise the flag

https://i.imgur.com/fIQZdCX.jpg

[url=https://youtu.be/8mn0YOF9l8A?t=25s]i think this is gg, i now pronounce this thread resolved raise the flag[/url]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/fIQZdCX.jpg[/img]
120
#120
-1 Frags +

http://www.politiscales.net/en_US/results/?b0=7&b1=71&e1=21&e0=40&t1=31&t0=33&s1=79&j1=67&s0=10&j0=10&c1=71&c0=12&m0=24&m1=29&reli=100&femi=10&p0=19&p1=55&mona=67&comp=100&vega=67

dude communism lmaooooo

http://www.politiscales.net/en_US/results/?b0=7&b1=71&e1=21&e0=40&t1=31&t0=33&s1=79&j1=67&s0=10&j0=10&c1=71&c0=12&m0=24&m1=29&reli=100&femi=10&p0=19&p1=55&mona=67&comp=100&vega=67

dude communism lmaooooo
1 2 3 4 5
Please sign in through STEAM to post a comment.