Discussing Communism

D

Deleted member 88

Guest
“Everything bad about capitalism wasn’t real capitalism”.

Amazing.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Nothing in the capitalist system requires “holding up the end of the bargain”-that’s an issue of social trust and individual character. Cheating people is quite profitable so long as you don’t get caught or your too powerful or well protected for your victims to retaliate.
And yet more evidence you have no idea what capitalism means. When you put money on an investment, you have a property right to that investment being conducted according to the agreement, just like exchange money in exchange for labor entitles you to the labor done correctly as agreed upon. What Ponzi and Madoff did was theft, which is against a system held by property rights.


Are you paying attention? Species are going extinct, the Chinese are fucking hunting Jaguars, because there is a market for their superstitious retarded aphrodisiacs. Palm plantations are burning jungles in Indonesia, and fisheries worldwide are being depleted.
So this is changing the goal posts. You said forests were going away, I showed they were coming back, and now you're trying to change it to another metric.

Didn't mean to be rude and wanted to explain my Haha, it just really tickled me that your response was "That wasn't real capitalism." I don't think I've seen that one turned around before.
I get it. I mean, in this case it works, as its obviously not capitalism and Madoff and Ponzi are the exception, not the rule. The difference between this and communism is that I have countless examples of Capitalism working.
“Everything bad about capitalism wasn’t real capitalism”.

Amazing.

Calling Madoff a capitalist is like calling Rockefeller a communist. It makes no goddamn sense. He's a thief, violating the property rights of those who held a contract with him.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
And yet more evidence you have no idea what capitalism means. When you put money on an investment, you have a property right to that investment being conducted according to the agreement, just like exchange money in exchange for labor entitles you to the labor done correctly as agreed upon. What Ponzi and Madoff did was theft, which is against a system held by property rights.
Literally the exact same reasoning could be applied to Party officials leading swanky lifestyles and extracting money from the workers in the Soviet Union. Madoff and Ponzi engaged in actions that were intended to profit them personally. Companies engage in fundamentally the same behavior. Just on a larger scale.

So this is changing the goal posts. You said forests were going away, I showed they were coming back, and now you're trying to change it to another metric.
I’m referring to the environment as a whole. Not just deforestation. As important as that is. The environment is being ripped to pieces.

Calling Madoff a capitalist is like calling Rockefeller a communist. It makes no goddamn sense. He's a thief, violating the property rights of those who held a contract with him.
Madoff just so happened to get caught. What do you think about all the Wall Street wizards who don’t get caught? Rockefeller at least invested in something concrete, robber baron that he was. Madoff and the financial industry are outright parasites. That do not produce anything of value, and outright destroy companies they purchase that don’t get those 50% returns on investment.

Capitalism is also spiritually destructive. It has torn apart families, and has broken men and women’s social lives. How can you think of God, community, and your role in the greater Plan when your grinding 9-5 and being yelled at by your boss because your assignment wasn’t written in handwriting he likes? Think about all the children that suffered due to the parents working-and ended up not getting the upbringing they needed. Think about all the alcoholism, and misery.

Think about the social atomization-“your a consumer and a worker, you have no identity or worth outside of that”-which has been destructive to untold hundreds of millions.

Capitalism needs to be regulated heavily, and it needs to serve the interests of the whole state, community and people.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Literally the exact same reasoning could be applied to Party officials leading swanky lifestyles and extracting money from the workers in the Soviet Union
Exactly. Just because the party officials were pursuing personal profit doesn't make them capitalists, because they stole the money. The same applies to Madoff. I'm glad we can agree neither is a capitalist.

Companies engage in fundamentally the same behavior. Just on a larger scale.
No, its fundamentally different, because what they do has consent, unlike with Madoff.

Thats why Capitalism is moral, btw, because it cares about consent.

Capitalism is also spiritually destructive. It has torn apart families, and has broken men and women’s social lives. How can you think of God, community, and your role in the greater Plan when your grinding 9-5 and being yelled at by your boss because your assignment wasn’t written in handwriting he likes? Think about all the children that suffered due to the parents working-and ended up not getting the upbringing they needed. Think about all the alcoholism, and misery.
So having to work is now the problem? That's not just a problem with capitalism, but with every economic system.. Well when you find the magical system where people don't have to work, please call your representative. I'm sure at least AOC is interested. All I hear is whining that being able a NEET isn't possible long term.


For everyone else, this is what too much Tucker will do to a poor conservative mind: turn them into a useful idiot for the leftists.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Exactly. Just because the party officials were pursuing personal profit doesn't make them capitalists, because they stole the money. The same applies to Madoff. I'm glad we can agree neither is a capitalist.
Way to miss the point? Your saying Madoff and Ponzi weren’t good capitalists, I was saying the party bosses aren’t good communists.

No, its fundamentally different, because what they do has consent, unlike with Madoff.

Thats why Capitalism is moral, btw, because it cares about consent.
Hmm...consent. I’m sure those people who got hooked on opioids would be so glad to hear that their deaths/family members deaths were entirely okay because they consented to it. If I sell a child poison, and the child consents-under capitalism I have done no wrong. Because capitalism is not an ethical system and isn’t concerned with ethics at all.

So having to work is now the problem? That's not just a problem with capitalism, but with every economic system.. Well when you find the magical system where people don't have to work, please call your representative. I'm sure at least AOC is interested. All I hear is whining that being able a NEET isn't possible long term.
Yes, because raising children, investing in your religion/community/spending time with your spouse, and living a full life is just being a NEET.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Way to miss the point? Your saying Madoff and Ponzi weren’t good capitalists, I was saying the party bosses aren’t good communists.
WOOSH.

The point was that your definition of capitalism was so large that it included Stalin, because he was a person who acted to enrich himself on profits (of the state in this case).

Your definition of capitalism is shit.

Hmm...consent. I’m sure those people who got hooked on opioids would be so glad to hear that their deaths/family members deaths were entirely okay because they consented to it. If I sell a child poison, and the child consents-under capitalism I have done no wrong. Because capitalism is not an ethical system and isn’t concerned with ethics at all.
...Children can't consent. As for people hooked on opioids as adults, yes, they are at fault for getting there, but there's definitely an open question about whether an addict can really consent to buying drugs. I'd edge towards yes, as you consented to end up in the addicted state, but others might say no, until they realize coffee is addictive as well. At what point is it no longer a consensual exchange for a coffee addict to buy another cup? It's an interesting question.

Yes, because raising children, investing in your religion/community/spending time with your spouse, and living a full life is just being a NEET.
If you aren't working, then yeah. It literally is. You are Not in Employment, Education, or Training. Why the hell should someone pay you their hard earned money so you can have a family if you don't want to work?
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Holy Hades, it’s amazing to see conservatives worship Mammon.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised though.
 

absenceofmalice

Well-known member
Temporarily Banned
capitalism is calls from your employer on vacation at 10:00 PM because that project is just so much more important than your family.
In every other system you don't get the vacation or any incentive to come back to work besides fewer beatings. The capitalist employer gets you to come to work on your vacation with bribery and you get to keep the bribe the non capitalist employer just screams "row harder" and whips you till you die even if you do everything he says.
 

Largo

Well-known member
Madoff just so happened to get caught. What do you think about all the Wall Street wizards who don’t get caught? Rockefeller at least invested in something concrete, robber baron that he was. Madoff and the financial industry are outright parasites. That do not produce anything of value, and outright destroy companies they purchase that don’t get those 50% returns on investment.
As I've often commentated, I find it hilarious how both reactionaries and socialists look down on merchants and traders and investors as people who don't produce "real value".

Like, the monarchies you seem to worship so much weren't any better under on the environment, nor were communist societies.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
As I've often commentated, I find it hilarious how both reactionaries and socialists look down on merchants and traders and investors as people who don't produce "real value".

Like, the monarchies you seem to worship so much weren't any better under on the environment, nor were communist societies.

Merchants and traders serve a vital role one that is worthy of respect, but at the same time you do have people who abuse their power, take their greed to far and other problems. You want people to be able to pursue a better life and be able to trade thats a good thing but you don't want people to go mad with power and become abusive psychopaths.

The fundamental problem I think with society is its lack of balance its driving every one a bit crazy and its not making any one happy.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
As I've often commentated, I find it hilarious how both reactionaries and socialists look down on merchants and traders and investors as people who don't produce "real value".

Like, the monarchies you seem to worship so much weren't any better under on the environment, nor were communist societies.

Except monarchies at least allowed trade, and in fact it was merchant guilds which introduced most of limitations on trade, not monarchies themselves.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Except monarchies at least allowed trade, and in fact it was merchant guilds which introduced most of limitations on trade, not monarchies themselves.
The merchant guilds were to a certain extend a formalization of relationship between regulation and rent seeking. Regulations are always heavily influenced by rent seeking, which is why they need to be minimized.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
I forgot to respond to this earlier.

OMG, we have someone who apparently doesn't know who Friedrich Ebert was!

Yes, he was the legitimate chancellor of Germany who sent freshly-demobilised WW1 veterans in to suppress attempted communist uprisings aimed at overthrowing the shaky German government, in a situation in which Germany was still at war with the Entente.

Oh, I'm supposed to feel sad for people who tried violently overthrowing the German government in a copy of the Bolsheviks' coup in St. Petersburg (explicitly to help the Bolsheviks, at that!), and at best if they had succeeded would have brought Germany into a civil war straight on the heels of its losses in WW1? A civil war they had practically zero chance of winning since the Entente armies sitting right on the border would have had a much more easier time intervening in favour of their enemies than they were in Russia?

And if they won against all odds - Germany would just have turned into yet another totalitarian socialist hellscape.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
North Korea is communist, and is the longest lasting one so far, and I can tell you, they are not a nice place
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
As I've often commentated, I find it hilarious how both reactionaries and socialists look down on merchants and traders and investors as people who don't produce "real value".
Merchants do a valuable job of exchanging commodities between individuals and their makers in return for payment, they do not produce 'goods' or 'services' in of themselves rather they provide a 'service'.

Traders are the same, it's just that they exchange 'goods' for 'goods' rather than in currency payments.

Investors provide a cash influx to up and coming of the first category and then sit back and earn a profit doing jack all, the only risk involved being losing their money should their venture fail provided the game hasn't already been rigged by them.

Guess which of the three I love the most?
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Merchants do a valuable job of exchanging commodities between individuals and their makers in return for payment, they do not produce 'goods' or 'services' in of themselves rather they provide a 'service'.

Traders are the same, it's just that they exchange 'goods' for 'goods' rather than in currency payments.

Investors provide a cash influx to up and coming of the first category and then sit back and earn a profit doing jack all, the only risk involved being losing their money should their venture fail provided the game hasn't already been rigged by them.

Guess which of the three I love the most?

Traders?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top