cancel reply
Posting mode: Reply

Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
name e-mail subject pw(deletion)
Post and go
Bump thread?

  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Javascript must be enabled for all of our addons to work.
  • Come chat and see that we're all a bit crazy on IRC!
  • Do not post any artwork from and/or
    Jeremy Bernal. This is now a bannable offense.

File: poor_homeless_furries.jpg - (93.26 KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
95500 No.3484736

Seems like all of the poor furries seem to also make every furry convention, are they sucking people off for room space?

File: money.jpg - (32.83 KB, 500x399) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

It seems to me that everyone around me may not be poor but at least poorer than me, having credits instead of debits and I'm making a little lower than average around here with my very unpristigeous job.


Possibly but don't forget they'll pack 7 people into a king bed room to split up room cost. Then they won't eat the whole convention unless they go with a group of people to a restaurant and freeload.


>>3484738 I know one guy who used the promise of drawings to pay his way to Anthrocon and the two of them either bummed nights in friend's hotel rooms or slept in the car.

File: DPHKTKJXcAABbSM.jpg - (68.83 KB, 613x541) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Most of America is poor. People don't understand that because the media acts like it isn't true. Everyone you see on TV is either a millionaire or making way more than your average citizen. Basic math tells us that what people in power tell us is happening and what is really happening aren't close to the same thing.

Minimum wage in America is $7.25. After taxes you end up needing to work 45.2 hours a week to break the poverty line of $15,060 U.S. This means working 8 hours a day, six days a week working a shit job you don't like for too little money to be considered worth it and feeling like you have no other choice. And that is the optimal situation for poor people. Most jobs won't let you have more than 30 hours a week so they end up working 2 jobs, 5-6 hours each day and you are lucky if you can ever get a day off at all.

If you are half competent one of your two jobs will always want you to come in to work an extra shift because there is always someone calling out and if you don't do it you end up getting fired.

That is why Trump won. That is why Americans walk around with a general feeling of malaise. They know the rich are getting rich by doing nothing while they work themselves to the bone just to keep from being homeless.

That is why the 1% are running scared. People are waking up and realizing the only reason they have to work like dogs is that the 1% live like pigs and it's time to cook some bacon.

File: election.jpg - (65.66 KB, 586x836) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Are you a communist?

File: It_topples_so_easy.png - (202.26 KB, 630x701) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


>Are you a communist.

No, I think Capitalism works great when it is well regulated. Communism is doomed to fail because it has no checks and balances. Capitalism is a system of opposing forces. One side, (The businesses) wants to grow as fast as it can while the other side, (The Government) wants to regulate and make sure the workers are taken care of while the growth happens.

In a well regulated capitalist society there would always be progress but not so much so that it hurt the country. America is not a well regulated capitalist society. The system is broken with almost all the gains going to the top. That is why, right now, what we need is socialism to redistribute the wealth and make the system more stable. Then we can get back to the business models that made America the power house it is today not this globalist race to the bottom.

File: old pirate.jpg - (553.10 KB, 1237x986) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


>other side, (The Government) wants to regulate and make sure the workers are taken care of while the growth happens

Do note that he did say that's the ideal - the US has been shitty at this portion ever since Reagan demolished the Air Traffic Controllers union back in '81:

Which is especially ironic because the issues they went on Strike over? They exist to this day - - and have caused accidents in the past -



This is why most countries are now going for full private prisons, private police, huge surveillance programs.

They want to control everything so they can remove, kill and send to private prisons anyone who dares to even "think" on toppling their rich oligarch overlords.



I still wonder why people applaud Reagan.
He pretty much signalled the end of the strong government and the complete manipulation by corporations. Now all politicians MUST have some sort of oligarch connection to be president and to maintain position.

The Bushes for example, were all into big oil.
Obama was into the bankers.
Trump is pretty much with anyone who gives him money.
And Hillary is a news corp chill.


A strong government ends up acting like the oligarchs anyways, because it can, so it eventually corrupts. A weak government bends backwards for the corporate, and a big government, whether strong or weak, just runs into corruption and mismanagement of resources - again because the system corrupts itself.

The common demoninator for the problem here is government. The role of the government as an arbitrary elected dictator who's trying to "fix" things here and there is the source of all these problems. The role of the government isn't to save people from themselves or institute "social justice", but to identify the fundamental principles and values of the society and supervise that the society works according to the rules the people set up for themselves - i.e. how the people want to live - not how some political elite would wish the people to live even if they thought it would be better or smarter.

File: 13xb3ayrbq001.jpg - (51.86 KB, 728x649) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

The only way to end poverty is to make education free for everyone including the poor.

File: DPm2-3BW0AA3Utn.jpg - (134.68 KB, 1200x943) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


>A strong government ends up acting like the oligarchs anyways, because it can, so it eventually corrupts...

This is why the best forms of government are adversarial in nature. America went to shit because the Democrats and the Republicans started working for the same bosses when neo-liberalism took over the democratic party under the Clintons.

As contrary as it may seem, opposing forces are necessary to maintain a healthy political system under any form of government. Too much cooperation leads to going to an extreme.

File: RJdxAMd.png - (466.54 KB, 869x516) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


>A strong government ends up acting like the oligarchs anyways, because ... corruption. A weak government bends backwards for the corporate and just runs into corruption.

So you want anarchy?

>The role of the government isn't to save people from themselves or institute "social justice"

It is if the people demand it. People demanded slavery end and it ended. People demanded child labor end and it ended. People demanded women have the right to vote and they got it. All things done by government. The problem isn't government, the problem is the corruption.

Your problem is you see government only through the lens of someone who grew up under neo-liberalsim. Government isn't suppose to just do shit on it's own, it's suppose to enact what the people want. It's only under Clintonism that the government became a parasite sucking the life out of America. Before Reagan and Clinton we had a government that worked for the people. It took bi-partisan support for corruption to fuck us all over.



>Government isn't suppose to just do shit on it's own, it's suppose to enact what the people want.

Congratulations for repeating my point.

Now explain, why every single government has done the exact opposite?
a) because "the people" aren't actually a unified whole with unified wants and needs
b) because governments get filled with the same selfish self-serving people like everyone else is, who represent only their own special interests
c) because the more power is concentrated on the fewer the people, the more competence is required of those few people to manage it, while at the same time under a democracy the more likely they are to be simply charismatic idiots or populistic sociopaths
d) all of the above

>So you want anarchy?

Lack of government doesn't imply lack of law and rules. It just means the lack of a special political class that grows like a tumor on the back of the society and fucks things up for everyone.


Seriously. Standing governments exist because people can't leave well enough alone. The whole point of the career politician is to look for problems to solve, and where there are no problems, one is soon invented out of nothing.

The less they do, the longer they reign.



Shitass. Take your political views to pol. I'm here for the furry drama....asshat.


Who wants to start a business to stop being poor?

File: Simple_ideas_are_powerful.png - (286.29 KB, 789x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


>Government will always be corrupt because selfish people will always take the jobs.

If it bothers you that much, take the job yourself and don't act like that. There are way more decent people than there are assholes in the world. That's the whole point of a revolution to replace the greedy with the selfless. You are the answer to the problem you think is unsolvable.



>If it bothers you that much, take the job yourself and don't act like that.

How naive of you. Power corrupts, because as soon as you have any, people start lining up at your door demanding you to do shit for them. Some will try to appeal to your pity, some appeal to your sense of justice, some lie, some cheat, some simply point a gun at your face or make other offers you can't refuse, and ultimately if you don't play along people stop believing in you and you lose your power.

What do you think political power is? How do you gain it? By promising people shit in exchange. As soon as you fullfill that promise, or refuse to, they dump you, but if you only make it seem like you're doing them favors, you get re-elected and you can run your own agenda.

But that is already corruption. You think I would win in that game against thousands of other assholes?



>There are way more decent people than there are assholes in the world.

Decent people don't want to tell others how to live and how to think, because they know - unlike the childish do-gooders - that two people can come to two different equally reasoned and reasonable conclusions over the same issues, and forcing one over the other would be a travesty.

The people who should have power are typically the ones who don't want it - only those can be trusted with it.

File: Putin-Hillarys-Biggest-fan.png - (132.79 KB, 398x427) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


>You only stay in office by being corrupt.

Yeah, no. That is bullshit. Sanders has been in office since the stone age and has gotten tons of shit done. He wins his elections by 60-80%.

File: b469e71508fd5c8a3ccc0f386823455a.jpg - (358.59 KB, 1500x902) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


>Decent people don't want to tell others how to live and how to think...

Again, you are thinking like a Trump. Stop it. People in political office, when they do it right, listen to what the majority of people in their state want and do that. That is why town halls were such a big deal because if you talk to your rep directly your opinions seem like the opinions of the people in your state. That is why the Koche brothers hire actors to go to town halls and influence republicans. If Soros doesn't do it I'll be shocked. As a politician you are suppose to be out there, among the people, listening to them not dictating on high like a king.

They call it public service for a reason. You are the servant not the royalty.



America has lifted more people out of poverty than any other country and any other economic system. Since the 1970's the Upper middle class has ballooned from only 19% of the population to 35% of the population.

What's actually keeping people poor? Social programs like social security. Families stopped saving because the goberment promised to take care of them when they were older, and the boomers have been reaping the benefits of our money paying for their retirements whereas we will never see a penny of what we put in.

Statistically speaking, all you need to do in America to climb out of poverty is finish highschool, don't have a kid out of wedlock, and get a job. People who have done these three things have never stayed near the poverty line for long.


Meanwhile Communism lifts entire nations from serfdom to industrial and technological powerhouses within the span of about 50 years, and keeps things running smoothly until imperialists start staging coups and threatening nuclear war.




Objective fact. Communiusm builds nations and provides for the populace like it's the only thing that matters. Because when you aren't being controlled by greedy pigs, you don't have to worry about appeasing some sociopath's bottomless lust for money.


Except... You're still being controlled by greedy pigs and have to appease to a group of sociopaths' bottomless greed for money. Some pigs are more equal than others, and some pigs are just blind.
Oink oink, Mr. Bacon.



>People in political office, when they do it right, listen to what the majority of people in their state want and do that.

In the real world, people in political office listen to what everyone has to say, promise to do exactly that - even as it is contradictory - and then do nothing.

At best in a representative democracy where the winner takes it all, you get the tyranny of the 51% where a slim majority gets to dictate what the other half of the people have to do. The government is not by the people, for the people, simply because it's not of the people and it barely represents their interests in the first place.



>>Communiusm builds nations and provides for the populace like it's the only thing that matters.

Yet every real example of a communism has exploited its citizenry and used them as slaves to benefit a small political elite, and the only thing that seems to matter is maintaining that hegemony.

The Soviet Union for example got all their industry as a gift (war aid from the Americans), and by conquering and annexing lands and demanding war reparations from the countries they failed to invade. Stalin for example made Finland build over 500 locomotives for the Russian railways, and hundreds of ships, as a compensation for defending themselves against the Soviets in WW2. The Soviet Union simply didn't have the industrial capacity because Stalin was attempting to steal food from the peasants in Ukraine to pay for everything, which caused famines and massive loss of lives.



>Sanders has been in office since the stone age and has gotten tons of shit done.

You think sanders isn't corrupt yet? Make him the president and he will be.



>The Soviet Union for example got all their industry as a gift (war aid from the Americans)

That was very kind of Americans. Americans are very famous of goving something out for free.



>I have never read any Marxist theory, but one time I read a book about talking animals so I am an expert in the subject

Consumer, you appear to be showing Communist sympathies with this post. You are engaging in wrongbadthink. If you feel the need to Oppose The System™ consider Libertarianism™, The Resistance™, The Alt-Right™, or other Movements™ that show proper respect and deference to our wise and benevolent Job-Creators. Remember, everything you say online is being recorded to protect your Freedoms™.

File: 500px-HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg - (36.23 KB, 500x389) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.




The point is selecting the LESS corrupt and more worried for its constituents.

Drumpf only cares how many times he appears on TV and how rich he is getting.



>>I have never read any Marxist theory

Neither have you.

The problem with Marxism is that, like any good religion, it's self-contradictory and offers no concrete solutions or testable hypotheses, so when people apply it in practice to create communism (Marxism-Leninism), they find themselves with something what the Germans called "Realpolitik".

In other words, Marx flies out of the window as the communist party tries to solve their fundamental existential problem: after they've righted the wrongs of society and installed the new system; how to remain in power when they are no longer needed?

Marx argued that communism is inevitable, but every communist in the world argue they have to keep the revolution going, and therefore have to stay in power instead of letting the people rule themselves.


No bullshit about "human nature"? I'm disappointed. It just doesn't feel like a proper lazy lib argument unless there's a vapid appeal to "human nature" in there somewhere.

Kudos for comparing Marxist economic theory to religion and proudly proclaim that you haven't actually read a damn thing about the subject you're trying to critique. That's some premium grade-A smug liberalism right there.

I used to buy all that bullshit. I started reading up on Communism just to troll hypersensitive fashy dorks. You won't believe this, but amazingly, one of history's most influential sociopolitical ideologies actually has some credibility. I know, who would have thought? It's almost like all those Revolutionaries across the world who fought and died for labor rights actually had a good reason to do what they did.

But no, hey, in middle school you learned that Stalin was a very bad man, so Communism must be bad. Ignore all that stuff about building up nations from nothing and then establishing the most successful space program in history. Communism never does anything good. The CIA approves of your compliance.



The funny thing about communism and socialism is that it is always argued from the standpoint that people agree with the presuppositions and assumptions it is built on.

You can decry the human nature argument, but aren't you making a human nature argument yourself if you're relying upon manipulating a very large group of people to behave specific way to make a fragile system like socialism or communism work?

Aren't you predicting how people will behave in a Marxist climate?

Every attempt at Marxist theory backed government has come with a firing squad to "delete" the exceptions. And those exceptions pile up into hundreds of thousands.

Reminds me a lot of the Matrix to be honest. No matter how beautiful your greater good is, it is still untold brutality and death up front, and then a constant stream of brutality and death to maintain control.



> Ignore all that stuff about building up nations from nothing and then establishing the most successful space program in history.

The "most successful space program" was relying on a single man, Korolev, who the communist system had just previously put into the gulag for the crime of being an Ukranian intellectual and therefore a potential political threat to the system. He barely survived, made the soviet space program work, and then died because of the injuries sustained in the prison camps, and then the soviet space program collapsed as the communists politically motivated educational system failed to train proper engineers and scientists to continue his work.

Communist nations, especially the Soviet Union, was built on other peoples' work and/or blatantly copied from the west and implemented using slave labor and spoils of war from invaded regions.


All economies and nations are built on the presupposition that they will work. All that rambling and you never managed to make an interesting point.


Amazing that one man built an entire space program by himself without any help, and kept it going right up to the present day even after he died. Too bad the evil Communists stole it all from him afterwards somehow.



>Kudos for comparing Marxist economic theory to religion

It is a religion. Marxist theory is based on a concept called historicism, which is the misguided idea that human history is a big scientific experiment where future can be foretold by only observing the past (which fails several scientific demarcation criteria and is thus pseudoscience), using Hegelian hocus pocus spirals of negation of negation. It makes false predictions by arbitrarily mis-identifying who and what counts as "society" or "class" etc. and mis-interprets the history simply by telling politically convenient porkies about what happened in the first place. It replaces science with a process of bullshit dialectic that allows the arguer to be always right by subtly shifting the meaning of their words retroactively, so whenever you argue with a Marxist you get nowhere - it's like wrestling with an eel.

>and proudly proclaim that you haven't actually read a damn thing about the subject

I haven't read much Marx, but that's not saying I haven't read about Marx and about the subject


Also funny how nobody brings up the umpteen millions of people butchered to preserve Capitalist Imperialism when crying crocodile tears about Communism.

The real sin of Communists is that they target the rich and powerful. The ones doing the exploiting. If they had just butchered the powerless they would be beloved allies.



But here's the thing. The presumptions in all other systems of government are tested in real time when those systems are attempted.

For the most part, democracy and republics have lasted for over 200 years. Monarchy has lasted longer. Religious ethnostates even longer than that. These forms of government manage to work along side human nature to have stability.

I cannot think of a Marxist government, or an attempt at one, that has lasted more than 80 odd years. They seem to face violent revolution within a generation. They face corruption that is too deep for the government to persist within a generation.

So if anything, Marxist governments have the most incorrect assumptions about human nature.

Even the Chinese, who have had the best attempt at controlling the markets and have the benefit of a historical land mass, they're deciding to allow many specific industries become privatized. They're allowing the means of production to be privatized. If they have the most cooperative climate, why are they still reverting to market economics?



I've never seen imperialist capitalism have a firing squad inside it's own native nation's borders that required backhoes and bulldozers to manage the digging and burying of humans. Never even saw United Kingdom at the height of it's colonizing period pull off the shit that I've seen Che Guevara do all by himself. Never saw Spain do the shit that USSR did.

So whatever. Blow me. Marxism is much more lethal.



>Amazing that one man built an entire space program by himself without any help, and kept it going right up to the present day even after he died.

Korolev was to the Soviets what Von Braun was to the US - the only guy who really knew his shit. The others just couldn't continue without his input, and the Soviet space program ran into mismanagement and fell behind the US.

The whole soviet system was designed and built by the pre-revolution engineers and scientists, who Stalin then killed on the point that anyone too ingenious and intelligent would become a political hazard. The communist system rewarded by death anyone who rose over mediocricity, because the ruling political elite couldn't become dependent on any exceptional individual. Meanwhile frauds like Lysenko got a free pass, because they knew how to say exactly what the communist leaders wanted to hear.



>The real sin of Communists is that they target the rich and powerful. The ones doing the exploiting.

The real sin of communists is that whatever good intentions they claim to have, the practical reality is that they're a bunch of populist thugs attempting to become the bourgeoisie instead of the bourgeoisie.



Nope, still doesn't hold a candle to communism's death count. You can factor in the death count of all those wars, even going back to when Capitalism started and it still wouldn't be as many deaths as Communism's running total.

>Iraq war: 1.2 million
>Afghanistan: 149,000
>Vietnam: Over 3 million
>Lack of clean water: 8 million yearly
>Hunger: 7.6 million yearly
>Curable disease: 3 million yearly
>Malaria: 500,000 yearly

Capitalism is a death machine.



You can't blame incidental death on capitalism, that's like blaming somebody for the death of another who was drowning because they refuse to jump in and drown with them.

You have food rotting and not feeding people, hey that's something that can be worked on and made better. Then in communism and socialism you've got intentional starvation like them now informed Marxism of the Great Leap Forward that resulted in the intentional starvation death of many people or the bread lines caused by the fact that the input in communist countries couldn't get their shit together on farming. I definitely say rotting food that was a little low production rank is an easier thing to fix and having no good farmers in the first place or intentionally starving people because it makes Logistics easier on you which is what communism did in both cases.


Well God damn, I can see why Cobalt has such bad posts. Dictation is awful for typing.

>Dear /furi/, why are you poor?

Why does (did?) IK rent a 90k house with two other people and drive a 10 year old car if he's so rich?

Is it something a jelly non-high-school-dropout, poorfag like myself will never understand?



>lack of water

Huh, I didn't realize that capitalism was responsible for creating all of those things. I always thought they predated capitalism, even predated humans but looks like I was wrong.


All that shit is easily and cheaply preventable.

But it's not profitable, so millions of deaths are preferable.


By your logic because you're not personally out there spending every waking moment preventing death by hunger and disease you are actively murdering hundreds of thousands of people who are dying from starvation and disease. You blaming capitalism for those deaths is no different from me blaming you.

Governments aren't superheroes.


lolno, I'm claiming that because we, collectively, are not out there spending every waking moment preventing death by hunger and disease we are actively murdering millions of people.

I, individually, can't do much about that. We, collectively, can. And it's immoral that we are not. Good way to start would be spreading Communism throughout the world.



So you're saying someone else should do it besides you, and it should be done with value or time that isn't yours. The fact you're not contributing yourself or your labor towards these people is no different from a government failing to do the same, you care but not enough to be personally involved and are just looking for a good way to pass the buck is you know communism will never come to pass and you will never be expected to do your fair share.



Well either that or you're just grandstanding on the suffering of others to try and justify political revolution while you don't actually care about their suffering.

It's funny that I see food banks run by Christians an elderly care centers run by Christians but I've never seen the Communist Outreach Community Center helping the poor or elderly. I don't think such a thing even exists.


That's a whole lot of assuming you're doing. All of it incorrect BTW. :-)


Workers co-ops, communes, and socialist activism organizations are dime a dozen sunshine. You could get involved with your friendly neighborhood Communists if you got away from the computer for five minutes.



Last time I had anything to do with that, sunshine, all they wanted to do was pink yarn bombing.


I'll give a shit when they wear if you were pussy hats and feed more homeless people.


Sounds like you were hanging out with a bunch of fucking Liberals, cupcake.



Dearheart, most of your fellow commies are just that. Communist leadership is just a demagogue looking for a flock, and a group of dissatisfied liberals is wonderful if you need sycophants.

I really don't even know what beef you guys really even have besides hating your worth being tied to... what you're capable of producing in society. I mean, we have one little democratic republic and what happens in the span of less than 300 years? Gay rights. Gay marriage. Trans rights. End of slavery. Minimum wage. Care for unwed mothers and their children. Care for the elderly. Mandatory medical emergency treatment.

In less than 300 years, we've done what hasn't been done in most of human history. How breakneck does progress need to be for you lot to feel satisfied in letting it develop?

Obviously this is not fast enough for you lot not to want to risk it all on another Cuba, China, or USSR disaster.

You do realize the dark ages happened and irrevocably set back human progress for 3 generations, and it was all due to a great deal of rapid political upheaval, right?

Fire and fury doesn't always get you to your goals faster.



>All that shit is easily and cheaply preventable.

Exactly, like in Africa where dropping food aid and free clothes all over the place puts the local farmer and tailor out of a job, and makes the next famine worse because everyone's expecting the UN to swoop in and drop more free shit.

Maybe, the people are sometimes at least partially responsible for their own misery and you're not universally responsible for saving everyone from themselves?

There's a lot of misconceptions about the human condition in the west, where people make the fallacy of thinking that everyone's rational and nice like we believe ourselves to be, that there isn't a warlords and bands of thugs that will instantly steal the solar panels you so graciously donate the poor peasant in India.

Maybe in the real world, you can't pour buckets of water in a dry well and expect it to stay there.



Or like when the shoes were donated by the crate to Africans, and put dozens upon dozens of cobblers out of work. Fun fact, shoemaker and cobbler is such a common name because most pre-industrial areas had 3 to 4 people making shoes because they wore out so quickly with all the human labor.


Or like when university-educated people invent diesel powered extruding machines to quickly 3D print houses out of liquefied soil and clay, and ship them to developing nations to "provide for housing aid".

So you got one western company shipping in the machine, shipping in the fuel, and most of the time even shipping in the raw materials, on donations from well-meaning people, and sets out building a mut hut village while the indigenous people stand by just watching them work and shaking their heads going, "You know, there's a thousand of us standing here idle while you work - we don't need your fancy robot".


It's almost as if charity isn't a solution, isn't it?

If only we could spread some sort of socioeconomic system into poor nations. One that strongly encourages cooperative labor for the good of the laborer, instead of trying to benefit the wealthy.

Nah, we should just maintain the status quo that butchers millions of people while more privileged people uselessly send free shit just to make themselves feel better.



>One that strongly encourages cooperative labor

You mean, like the free association of people into businesses and corporations?

>for the good of the laborer, instead of trying to benefit the wealthy.

You mean, one that doesn't force the laborer to give up their productive output to a "common" pool only to be handed a small allowance back by the state, while the rest is consumed by the elite?

>Unlike individual labour hours in the classical labour theory of value formulated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, Marx's exchange value is conceived as a proportion (or 'aliquot part') of society's labour-time.
>although it is axiomatic that socially necessary labour input determines commodity values, precise numerical calculation of such an input in relation to the value of a given commodity, i.e. the empirical regulation of the values of different types of commodities, is exceedingly difficult, due to incessantly shifting social, physical or technical circumstances affecting the labour process.

The free market does that calculation automatically for you, seamlessly and at all scales. The communist economy is unable to track and quantify absolutely everything that happens in the economy, and so is forced to set arbitrary prices and values, and in practice ends up short-changing all the laborers because the central political bureau responsible for the calculations never forgets to shift a portion aside for themselves and the political class, or to appoint portion of the productive output to tasks and enterprises that indirectly benefit themselves.



I don't know why you even bother, that guy doesn't understand what the tragedy of the commons is. Or that the means of production always start out belonging to "the people."

I wouldn't want an uneducated pleb doing heart surgery on me anymore than I'd want an uneducated pleb saddling up to a CNC machine and fucking it up because they never learned what end milling was. Or seeing a lathe bed pitted and rusted with layers of goo and gunk because the lathe is public property and no one is really responsible for it's upkeep on a personal level.



>and no one is really responsible for it's upkeep on a personal level.

Ah, but if you don't maintain the means of production, you go into the gulag.

Seriously though. A friend of mine has work experience with the Russians, in some backwater town that used to be a factory village manufacturing tanks during the cold war. There's still the work ethic that whoever last touches it, is responsible for it, so if something breaks nobody wants to fix it, so now they're trying to re-purpose the place to make train cars or something, and everybody's just standing about doing jack shit for fear of being personally responsible for anything that happens. Pneumatic hoses blow up, dirt and garbage everywhere, oil slicks on the floor... and the factory manager just ordered a new shiny industrial robot to do all the shit the men aren't doing - well, half a year later the manufacturer's rep is called back because shit don't work. Surprise surprise.


Oh, and while I'm on the topic. Another tale of socialism from the same guy.

In Ireland, in a car factory, they install a robot which has a joystick to steer it, and a computer with "rec" and "play" buttons, so you can do the work once for each type of task and then just press play. Unions swoop in, demand the record/play buttons taken out; can't do that, there must be a (union registered) man sitting in that chair wiggling that joystick, three guys in three shifts rotation each getting double pay at night...

What for? Marx talks about surplus labor, about people being forced to work extra only to get exploited and the surplus value taken away from them. Modern socialism is based on people doing make-work when not required or needed, and demanding to get paid anyways. It's become about bull and shit.


On the question of why I bother. Why does the bee sting and the sun shine?

In any case, the fundamental issue and argument about the Marxist criticism of the capitalist mode of production, about the whole class conflict is that some people are forced to work more than is necessary to sustain themselves in order to sustain another class that works less than is necessary to sustain themselves, thus gaining leisure while others lose it. "Work" being real work, and not make-work such as spending a lot of effort to take the gains of the surplus labor of someone else, as that's not creating any new use-value. The basic class division is between those who are on the making, and those on the recieving end of the society.

Which ironically puts all the welfare recipients in the modern society squarely on the recieving end of the society, making them the class of exploiters - via the political machinery of the socialist political class which is a giant engine of make-work "do gooding" that doesn't create any new use-value but simply redistributes it.

If we were to implement communism now, all the poor and the jobless would be put into work camps - which is fine if you're a middle-class liberal running for a union leader position, because obviously you're doing a very important job organizing it all.


And if you want to know what's really wrong with Marxist economics:

>The law of value (German: Wertgesetz) is a central concept in Karl Marx's critique of political economy
>(Thus,) the fluctuating exchange value of commodities (exchangeable products) is regulated by their value, where the magnitude of their value is determined by the average quantity of human labour which is currently socially necessary to produce them

In the capitalist society, all value is being created by laborers that are more or less efficient at their work, while the prices are set according to the marginal cost of production which is determined by the most expensive (least efficient) producer who is needed to fullfill the demand. For example, if there's not enough electricity in the power grid because all the cheap powerplants are already at full power, then supply and demand makes the price go up until it's high enough for someone to start up an expensive diesel generator.

Therefore the price is always higher than the average cost of production, and profit emerges. Now the question is, who gets that profit? In capitalism, the owner of the means of production gets it, while the workers are paid only what is necessary to sustain them. This seems like an injustice, because the capitalist gets a free lunch for doing nothing but claiming ownership on other people's labor.

But equally, the workers don't actually deserve the profit either, because on the very same argument it doesn't belong to them. It's an artifact of the price mechanism. Therefore it falls onto the state to determine what is the average cost of production and set the prices accordingly to represent the "real" price for what anything costs to make, which is supposed to make the market more rational by revealing the true impact of production and consumption. Meanwhile the laborers are compensated proportional to their cost of living, as determined by the state, not proportional to the difference between prices and cost of production. No more private profits for anyone at the expense of others.

You can only gain more by working more, and then exchaging the surplus value you create for other value others create, as made possible by the state which researches and defines what the average real price of anything is. But that "real price" is always less than what it truly costs to make one more, so it tends to drive demand up. This then then loops back into the amount of necessary work, which then loops back into the average cost of production, which drives the average price up and lowers the demand - so far so good: the system is self-regulating and stable. It seems very rational - that's how it should go.

However, as it falls onto the state to organize production and determine its cost, because the marginal producers won't voluntarily sell below their production costs, all prices become a political issue: if bread becomes more expensive, the population will vote to lower the price of bread, which decouples the price from the average cost of production and the system turns irrational again. Hence democracy and mob rule cannot be allowed for the sake of economic stability, and the control of the entire economy falls into the hands of the central leadership tasked for the purpose, which has to insulate itself from populist mob rule and automatically becomes an autocratic dictatorship.

And that's what happened in the Soviet Union, in Communist China, in Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam... The end of the Soviet Union came when they were faced with increasing tensions between the state and the population, as the economy was increasingly running off the rails between what the people wanted and what they were given. Gorbachev tried to do a "perestroika" or a re-structuring that allowed state-owned enterprises to more freely meet popular demands, and that finally made the shit hit the fan as consumer prices became increasingly subsidised while the production costs soared and the whole system went bankcrupt.

File: CBO_score_tax-plan-2017.PNG - (0.00 KB, 899x669) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

So the Dow just cracked 24K today -

And yet Trump's given rationale for the tax cuts has routinely been about "growing the economy", despite abundant evidence that the economy is fine, it's the people who're getting fucked.

And that tax proposal just makes it worse - - as only those making $75K and higher reap benefits for more than 10 years. Pic related - as even those making $30K and below will wind up paying more in Federal income taxes.



There was an analyst who did extensive studies about the great depression. And what is trump and his cronnies does, is exactly what the republicans back then when they did fuck up the economy. They caused a mammoth recession that took wars and huge government pushes to restart.

So I'm pretty sure all of this is planned towards a recession and then towards pushing the angry people toward a war against North Korea or Iran.

>we need to fix problems in the third world
>no you dumb commie, we've tried charity and private enterprise in the third world and it never works!
>Communism would work
>no yo dumb commie, private enterprise will fix everything for sure, and you should be doing charity work if you care so much, which you don't, unlike me!
>checkmate commies


>while the workers are paid only what is necessary to sustain them. This seems like an injustice, because the capitalist gets a free lunch for doing nothing but claiming ownership on other people's labor.

But that's wrong. The workers get exactly the market value of their labor. The capitalist cannot create too large a divide between the price of his good and the compensation of his workers, because if that happens a competitor could take his workers away by offering to hire them for a better wage. In the free market the laborer can choose who they work for, and if they want to earn more they have the freedom to obtain more skills to produce better goods and services.



funny, they said something similar with Bush after Clinton.
How nice it all ended right? (Ie, stocks losing billions in mere weeks, economy going to shit, unemployment all time high)



>>retirement account is that much closer to a cool mil!
>>Can you say early retirement, I know I can!

Cancel the early retirement plans. The figure I hear floated these days is two million.



Nice appeal to authority you got there, it'd be a shame if someone pointed out other economists and policy centers completely contradict that one.



>>we need to fix problems in the third world

Nice strawman you got there bud, but we literally did not claim that we needed to fix problems for other countries. We're fine letting them struggle and figure it out because trying and not completely succeeding is better than genocide and firing squads.

>>no you dumb commie, we've tried charity and private enterprise in the third world and it never works!

Again, "We" didn't try anything. Select groups did. And not only did it fail to work. It made things worse. When you put shoemakers out of work for 40-50 years, and then pull out your free shoe policy, no one of the modern generation has extreme life long knowledge or knowhow to begin making shoes again. This is why you have Africans now who use shopping bags for shoes.

>>Communism would work

Citation needed. Oh, you know what else could work? Slavery. Just because something can work, doesn't mean it would be humane or optimal.

>>no yo dumb commie, private enterprise will fix everything for sure,

No one claimed that. You know, a philosophy professor once told me that when someone is resorting to boiling down an argument to pure absolutes, it is a sure sign they've lost.

>>and you should be doing charity work if you care so much, which you don't, unlike me!

Never claimed I cared more. I pointed out that you could be working on these issues you claim to care about directly, rather than using these issues as a shield and club as you try to spark political revolution. Where did Cuba help anyone? Where did the USSR help anyone? Where did China help anyone? Every attempt I've seen at Marxist informed economic and social policy is still a place, a land, where people starve, and die from exposure. What does it really solve then?

>>checkmate commies

Sorry, I don't believe in collectivism... So really, it's "Checkmate, your retarded ass." Not commies at large.



>posts walls of text about how Communism never works
>meanwhile in reality, Communism has industrialized and modernized dozens of exploited nations


>>See also: Zimbabwe
File: a37fa295f2e7aeb1cfdd47d822f061058b732ad0_hq.jpg - (78.79 KB, 750x318) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


>>The figure I hear floated these days is two million.

The formula is ...

(savings) = (desired yearly income) / .03


All I'm saying is ride that pony as long as you fucking can.



>The capitalist cannot create too large a divide between the price of his good and the compensation of his workers, because if that happens a competitor could take his workers away by offering to hire them for a better wage.

Paying higher wages would be increasing your cost of production - why would they do that? The argument makes no sense, as you're saying a less efficient competitor comes in and steal workers from a more efficient business. That's broadly speaking impossible, but also irrelevant.

The real reason why the logic is wrong is that it's missing the other half of the equation. Under a free market economy, as profits arise so does competition, and competition is what drives profits down. The capitalist cannot maintain too large a gap between prices and wages, because maintaining high prices would drive him out of business. The wages still remain whatever they are due to worker-competition which observes the same law of supply and demand - when there are more workers in the pool, wages go down. That's also why unions argue for better welfare benefits: they want to put people on unemployment to keep the competition down.

Profits can remain only in the case where no new competition is possible and the supply is perpetually constricted - like in a natural monopoly, or a government sanctioned monopoly, a cartel, or in crony capitalism where corporations collude with the government to regulate the competition out.

Hence why shit like the lightbulb ban happen. Anyone who cared about saving energy (=money) were already using fluorescent tubes or sodium pressure lamps etc. because they're still the most efficient options on the market. The lightbulb manufacturers just saw that the regular light bulb was getting too cheap, too easy to make, and there was no more profit in it, so they lobbied the government to ban it, so they could sell $20 LED bulbs to people who didn't need them.


_ / .03 _




That means x33, as in the amount you want for 33 years of retirement. Seems logical.


Paying higher wages would be increasing your cost of production - why would they do that?

Because it causes a positive cycle to start - those higher wages means your employees can spend money on things they normally wouldn't buy (which might include your product), which in turn increases demand for goods, increasing demand for labor to help step up production, and so forth.

Makes more sense than the fucking "Trickle Down" theory, as we've seen that fail hard in Kansas already -

The Daily Show interviewed some of the farmers out there who said flat-out that those tax cuts didn't incentivize him to hire more workers - - because why would it? He was already meeting demand, and his equipment was good enough that he didn't have to replace it, so why spend money unnecessarily?

Or if that's not good enough, have footage from the CEO Council where the CEOs in attendance are asked by the moderator to raise their hands if they plan on putting the tax cuts back into their businesses - - and only about 10 did so.

File: DKHir3VUMAA0vQ0.jpg - (261.07 KB, 1322x2048) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>>3484736 I mean, I'd pay a girl's way to a con if she agreed to be my pet/slave for the con... at least in the room.



>those higher wages means your employees can spend money on things they normally wouldn't buy (which might include your product)

If your employees are using their wages to buy your products, you're just giving your products to them for free. That's not profit.


It is if other companies follow suit, instead of pulling a Wal-Mart and deliberately underemploying people to the point that they need $2 billion a year in public assistance.


I don't work because of depression, social (and general) anxiety, and bpd issues. That's why I'm poor. I have never been to a con though.


Are you a boy or a girl?

File: 03_04e4e1550a0ead8e99d6d6692c5329fe.jpg - (197.99 KB, 828x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

jews did this to me.

they may knock me down a few pegs... but they will not replace me.

File: tumblr_mzsug5Aht11sbjbndo1_1280.png - (305.76 KB, 1280x1138) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

because i have very little marketable work experience or education


Well, it's now happened. Both the Senate and the House have passed their tax cut bills. Now all that needs to happen is reconciliation between the 2 bills and then for Trump to sign. So it's pretty much a done deal at this point.


america is going to shrivel up and die now


Jews didn't do shit to you, which is too bad. You should be castrated, put in a dress and sent to the wall.

File: deepanalkingarthur.png - (466.60 KB, 800x533) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

If you ant a better example.

The Insuling debacle.. where all producers colluded to have fixed increased prices because "muh capitalism".

People are literally dying because they cant have insulin! Insulin something that nowadays costs cents of a dollar to make.

Same with epipen and similar patented devices. They were purchased by well known bastards who the first maneouver was raise the price by ten fold.

And their only answer was "If they need it then they should be able to pay it!"

As for the hilarious myth that the US gives away free shit.


The US never gives anything for free. It will be always a small lettered contract that will force the country to depend entirely on US weapon exports and open their borders to ultra rich to predate and destroy the local economy by syphoning the natural resources to the US.



Sauce plz.


It took 5 posts in for 3B to derail this thread into yet another /pol/ thread. Sigh

Delete Post []