/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14311563]

∆

[Anonymous No.14311569]

Really captures everything wrong with the socialist utopia idea where all the rich people do all the work and pay taxes so that poor people get Free Shit.

[Anonymous No.14311573]

>>14311563
>>14311569
Is it seethe o'clock already?

[Anonymous No.14311577]

>>14311573
Socialism has never worked. Your ideology has literally failed multiple times. Imagine unironically calling yourself a socialist.

[Anonymous No.14311581]

>>14311563
Indeed, Holodomor, Zimbabwe and South Africa, in the near future, are examples of this.

[Anonymous No.14311602]

NatSoc standing on the right laughing at the retards on the plank

[Anonymous No.14311603]

>>14311563
now anon, you're not thinking dialectically

[Anonymous No.14311620]

>>14311577
Imagine being this dumb.

[Anonymous No.14311622]

>>14311620
I'm still right though, that's why you have no response.

[Anonymous No.14311626]

>>14311577
are you kidding? socialism is one of the most successful political programs of all time

[Anonymous No.14311630]

>>14311622
America and most of Europe is socialist right now and seems to be doing fine

[Anonymous No.14311632]

>>14311620
>Imagine being this dumb.

[Anonymous No.14311635]

>>14311630
>seems to be doing fine
Seems

[Anonymous No.14311645]

>>14311630
>Europe is socialist

Define your terms, because Europe is highly capitalistic with some socialist safety nets.

[Anonymous No.14311646]

>>14311630
Well yes if you suddenly started printing money everyone would be fine for a while, but eventually (like it always has done) the economy fails. Sweden has taking a massive nosedive into shit because of their socialism. Oh and what about historically socialist countries, how did that pan out? Lmao .

[Anonymous No.14311652]

>>14311602
Imagine believing in socialism in one country

[Anonymous No.14311655]

>>14311635
>>14311645
>>14311646
Looks pretty socialist for me. Huge government spending programs funded by taxation on the wealthy and corporations, aimed at increasing the wellbeing of the citizens

[Anonymous No.14311658]

>>14311581
Apartheid South Africa was socialism for white people.Half the white population worked in the public sector complete with government housing while the other half also enjoyed state funded education and healthcare.

[Anonymous No.14311659]

>>14311622
whatever you say boomer

[Anonymous No.14311660]

>>14311563
>a person becomes weightless when they die

[Anonymous No.14311664]

>>14311645
list of cities with the highest standard of living in the world. all of them are capitalist-socialist countries.

except Singapore and USA, which come in at #25 and #34 respectively.

[Anonymous No.14311665]

>>14311630
Europe is a mixed economy, predominantly capitalist, with a welfare system for the very poor. You stretch the definition of socialism to make it seem better than it is.

>>14311655
Maybe learn some basics economics before talking about shit you have no idea about. That is a budget spending chart. It tells you absolutely nothing about the political system, since there's no indication of how much actually goes into the budget. "Government spends money on social security" does not mean socialism.

[Anonymous No.14311667]

>>14311646
Herbusian macronomics virtually eliminates the need for purely circulatory M3 cash management systems. The off-longitudinal daily overage is used to predict quantitative easing requirements months in advance, while GDP yardsticks function as error reducing mechanisms in forex transactions

[Anonymous No.14311668]

>>14311660
BASED
only correct answer itt

[Anonymous No.14311669]

>>14311660
Just gotta shoot him in the right spot so he doesn't fall off the plank.

[Anonymous No.14311672]

>>14311665
How big a percentage of gdp before it becomes socialist in your book? I'm saying higher than 25% is pretty damn socialist

[Anonymous No.14311673]

>>14311660
>shoot guy
>guy falls back because he just got fucking shot
>no longer on the plank
>fall to your death
Seems pretty simple

[Anonymous No.14311674]

>>14311667
ok but what does that mean in english?

[Anonymous No.14311677]

>>14311577
>Socialism has never worked.
And yet for some strange reason capitalist governments find it necessary to overthrow them with military coups every time.

Curious, isn't it? That capitalist governments are so afraid of socialism that they need to topple their democratically elected governments and install fascist puppets, despite everyone knowing that socialism totally doesn't work?

[Anonymous No.14311679]

>>14311672
what the fuck? you know US spends mostly on building nuclear bombs, not railways and healthcare?

[Anonymous No.14311680]

>>14311673
people don't fall back when they get shot, they just crumple like a sack of bricks.

[Anonymous No.14311683]

>>14311673
>he thinks a revolver shot will make you fall back

haha, too much movies and videogames i see

[Anonymous No.14311698]

>>14311569
That is more in-line with the welfare state than socialism, per-se.

[Anonymous No.14311700]

>>14311672
I think income tax is a better indicator, as long as most of the actual budget isn't spent on defence. If a country has a very large defence budget then this doesn't apply:

(This is income tax for people below median income)
10% or under = libertarian
10% - 20% = standard capitalism
20% - 30% = capitalism with welfare system
30% - 40% = capitalism with welfare system + universal health care
40% - 50% = socialism with some free trade
50%+ = mostly socialism

[Anonymous No.14311701]

>>14311680
>what is Newton's third law
I know this is /lit/ but come on

[Anonymous No.14311706]

>>14311655
Why does your pie chart concern the United States? If that was your intention, then the amount spent on healthcare means jack shit for the average citizen, because we pay out the ass for it and get shit quality in return.

[Anonymous No.14311707]

>>14311672
It's not really about percentages. It´s about power of the working class versus power of the capitalist class. If the capitalists co-opt goverment into taxing the working class and spending money in the interests of the capitalist class it´s even further away from socialism than if the goverment didn´t spend money at all.

[Anonymous No.14311708]

>>14311563
Isn't socialism a form of government and capitalism a market system? I think a lot of the debate is due to this equivocal use of the words. You can never get rid of capitalism because it is natural for people to exchange things and rights. Can anyone explain why I'm wrong?

[Anonymous No.14311709]

>>14311701
Dude think about it. The bullet goes through the person. The pressure is too high to actually move the whole body bad. There's more to this than Newtons third law.

[Anonymous No.14311711]

>>14311700
again, what the fuck sort of definition of socialism is this?

[Anonymous No.14311712]

>>14311679
The chart posted in this very thread proves otherwise. Military is only 16%, the bulk is on socialist welfare policies like pensions, education, welfare etc. America has been socialist since the 30's. I'm not saying I approve of this

[Anonymous No.14311713]

>>14311569
>rich people do all the work
What color is the sky in your world?

[Anonymous No.14311714]

>>14311677
>fascist puppets
Name me a single time the West supported actual fascists. The only actual threat to capitalism come from fascism and for that reason they've opposed it everywhere it popped up. The destroyed Germany and Italy in the largest war in human history, undermined Portugal and Spain, and have overthrown or attempted to overthrow all of the Ba'athist states.

[Anonymous No.14311716]

>>14311701
What sort of Deutshephysik is that? He´s firing a 9mm, not a cannon round.

[Anonymous No.14311720]

>>14311711
>>14311708
People will argue about definitions all day to make their argument stronger. I gave a rough, maybe wrong, but at least objective definition in terms of income tax.

[Anonymous No.14311724]

>>14311680
>>14311683
>>14311669
delusional folks who pretend that Capitalism's first move upon seeing the revolver wouldn't simply be to jump off the plank
Now do you get the joke??
jfc

[Anonymous No.14311725]

>>14311712
>America has been socialist since the 30's
keep dreaming mate
>>14311720
do you think Marx just sat around dreaming of raising income tax all day long?

[Anonymous No.14311726]

>>14311700
Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14311728]

>>14311716
>big ass revolver
>9 mm
Pic rel is straight out of dirty harry

[Anonymous No.14311735]

>>14311700
Why not corporation tax? That shows a countries attitude towards business better than person income tax. Oh...

[Anonymous No.14311738]

>>14311720
>at least objective definition in terms of income tax
It has nothing to do with income taxes, son. Capitalism = the economic regime in which Capital -- the source of income -- does not belong to those who make it work through their labor.

[Anonymous No.14311739]

>>14311714
Communists stopped Germany

[Anonymous No.14311746]

>>14311739
Yeah and who's side was the liberal West on you stupid fucking retard? They weren't helping Germany.

[Anonymous No.14311751]

>>14311724
Capitalism jumping off the board means it's 100% getting shot. So socialism and capitalism would die in that scenario.

Perfect analogy for climate change and how capitalism would rather continue the destruction of the environment ensuring the extinction of humanity rather than give power to the people.

[Anonymous No.14311752]

>>14311724
if he moves he'll get shot, you retard

[Anonymous No.14311753]

>>14311746
Re-read until you understand.

[Anonymous No.14311759]

>>14311716
It's a revolver, imbecile

[Anonymous No.14311762]

>>14311713
Not that poster but I'm guessing it's kinda purple

[Anonymous No.14311767]

>>14311724
>delusional folks who pretend that Capitalism's first move upon seeing the revolver wouldn't simply be to jump off the plank

The argument is that companies and the rich will just up and leave if taxes become too onerous. As for the logistics of that, and if there’s a place in the world that first, accommodates the rich to the degree the US does, and second, isn’t authoritarian, I can’t think of one.

[Anonymous No.14311770]

>>14311673
>Don't aim the gun at board-weighter (BW)
BW has absolute power over you because he can step away from the board at his own choice. You can only win if BW wants you to win.
>Shoot the BW
There's a chance he falls off the board and you fall down, which means you fall and either survive or die in the fall. There's also chance BW falls down on a board and you win.
>Aim at BW
Deathlock scenario. If BW wants to survive, BW let´s you off the board and you get to keep your gun which means you have absolute power over BW once you are both on land. If BW prefers dying in order to kill you, both of you die.

[Anonymous No.14311773]

I read somewhere that Bernie Sanders plan to fund his socialist programs that would fix all of America's problems with healthcare and education would require only a tiny .5% capital gains tax and another tax on financial transactions. The sheer absurdity that America's capitalists are so greedy that they won't even part with such tiny portions of their wealth which is generated without the pain of labor frankly repulses me.

[Anonymous No.14311774]

>>14311630
lmao

[Anonymous No.14311776]

>>14311759
How does that matter, you cumgurgling subhuman?

[Anonymous No.14311780]

>>14311752
>he'll get shot while jumping but also he'll magically end up staying entirely on his little end of the board ensuring that MY ABSOLUTE HERO Socialism will survive and even thrive in the amazing future that awaits after big bad Capitalism is gone for ever and ever

[Anonymous No.14311781]

>>14311626
Funding industrialization by stealing your peasants’ food until they starve doesn’t count as “successful”

[Anonymous No.14311788]

>>14311753
What you said has nothing to do with my post so I think you should try to figure out who you actually meant to reply to because it wasn't me. You're a retard if you think the West was helping Germany and you should seek help.

[Anonymous No.14311797]

>>14311780
i don't give a fuck about economics, if the guy jumps off, the other guy is gonna shoot him, thats how a standoff works.

[Anonymous No.14311813]

>>14311752
Not if he dives backwards. Unless the nigger has aimbot, if he somehow fires, it’s more than likely going off to the side as he loses balance.

[Anonymous No.14311816]

>>14311797
>that's how a standoff works
If only your reading comprehension was as developed as your awareness of standoff dynamics

[Anonymous No.14311817]

>>14311776
A revolver of a higher caliber has more force than a 9mm handgun.

[Anonymous No.14311823]

>>14311660
based retard

[Anonymous No.14311829]

∆:∆

[Anonymous No.14311830]

>>14311817
Revolvers can come in .22, you know.

[Anonymous No.14311846]

>>14311770
Wouldn't BW falling on top of the board fuck up the weight equilibrium keeping the board up, sending you falling to the your death?

[Anonymous No.14311850]

>>14311830
Shit eating retard.

[Anonymous No.14311852]

>>14311726
>dude you're wrong just believe me

[Anonymous No.14311854]

>>14311817
It's still a fucking handgun.

[Anonymous No.14311862]

>>14311725
What does Marx have to do with modern socialism?

[Anonymous No.14311868]

>>14311846
It might, it might not. It's a diceroll.

[Anonymous No.14311870]

>>14311767
>The argument is that companies and the rich will just up and leave if taxes become too onerous.

As if they would be allowed to do that. Apologists for capital really are breathtakingly clueless.

[Anonymous No.14311879]

>>14311683
If you've ever seen any video on liveleak of a person getting shot they don't leap backwards, but there is a momentary shock and slump where the person is at least a foot or two away from where they are.

In this scenario, the capitalist would 100% be off the plank.

[Anonymous No.14311884]

>>14311868
Even if the corpse somehow fell in the perfect way to maintain balance, you would fuck up the new equilibrium that the corpse has made if you moved

[Anonymous No.14311890]

>>14311738
You're still stuck in 1800s definitions while the rest of the world has moved on to actual pragmatic matters. If a country is taxing its citizens/businesses 50%+ to fund schools, hospitals etc. then it is for all intents and purposes operating under a mostly socialist administration.

[Anonymous No.14311895]

>>14311813
>>14311816
as soon as he makes a move the guy is going to shoot, its that simple. but his only option is to make the move as quick as possible or the guy is going to walk back onto the cliff. if he waits, he's fucked and the guy is going to shoot him after he gets onto solid ground. if he makes a move, he's got a good chance of getting shot, but he will also kill the other guy, too. so its a matter of whether or not he wants to buy himself an extra 30 seconds of life on earth with the price of letting the other guy live.

[Anonymous No.14311905]

>>14311850
houellebecq?

[Anonymous No.14311915]

When will this socialism meme just go away?

[Anonymous No.14311924]

>>14311884
If you move forward, the force acting on the side of dead body will be smaller. Still, it's a diceroll.

[Anonymous No.14311925]

>>14311890
this is the sort of shit that happens when you let analytic philosophers rule the world

you look at a % and you see pure intentions and absolute wish fulfillment

[Anonymous No.14311927]

>>14311915
as soon as you start socializing

[Anonymous No.14311936]

>>14311915
When capitalism will.

[Anonymous No.14311946]

>>14311890
Taxation is not necessary under socialism.

[Anonymous No.14311957]

>>14311946
Come again?

[Anonymous No.14311963]

>>14311915
Never. Socialism will win.

[Anonymous No.14311967]

>>14311573
Literally not how any sort of significant debate between capitalism and socialism works. :3

[Anonymous No.14311969]

>>14311563
Woah...

[Anonymous No.14311975]

>>14311563
>"socialism" shoots
>"capitalism" falls on the wooden board
>"capitalism" dead body still sustains "socialism"
>mfw

[Anonymous No.14311996]

>>14311975
Only Marx said it better.

[Anonymous No.14311998]

>>14311936
so never?
>>14311963
How does it feel that the automation will just result in higher living standards for the working class and socialism will just disappear?

[Anonymous No.14312000]

>>14311957
Taxation is just a means of controlling inflation. There are better methods.

[Anonymous No.14312001]

>>14311890
More like you don´t understand them. Socialism as a regime means that economy is operated democratically, but socialism as a political movements can aim towards that regime.

State that get´s it´s income from taxing bussinesses is not socialist by definition. State that get´s it´s income through the bussinesses it owns would be. However state with a strong socialist movement would be increasing taxes, because it want´s to see higher portion of the private profits distributed on democratic basis, while a state with stronger power of the capitalist class would want to see profit remaining in the hands of private owners.

[Anonymous No.14312011]

>>14311998
>so never?
If you want to believe in capitalism surviving the heat death of universe...yes.

[Anonymous No.14312013]

>>14311925
>>14311946
So what do you call such a country? Funny that at the start of the thread you mongs were saying most of Europe is socialist because of its large welfare state and high taxation, and now you're losing the argument you're shifting the goalpost.

[Anonymous No.14312019]

>>14311998
>automation will just result in higher living standards for the working class

Nah, it won't bro.

[Anonymous No.14312027]

>>14312001
That's closer to communism than socialism but please I don't want to argue about your definitions any more just move on. Just pretend I mean "democratic socialism" when I say socialism, since that's what most people mean.

[Anonymous No.14312035]

>>14312011
okay fine, but capitalism is going to keep going until we reach post scarcity or virtual post scarcity
anyone who thinks otherwise is fucking delusional

>>14312019
>Nah, it won't bro.
Then why has increases in economic production already massively done this over the past 150 years?

[Anonymous No.14312039]

>>14311996
thank you

[Anonymous No.14312040]

>>14312000
Such as?

[Anonymous No.14312050]

>>14312035
It hasn't. Look around you. People are miserable. Increase in economic production hasn't corresponded to increase in wages since the 1950s.

[Anonymous No.14312061]

>>14312000
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Herbusian macronomics virtually eliminates the need for purely circulatory M3 cash management systems. The off-longitudinal daily overage is used to predict quantitative easing requirements months in advance, while GDP yardsticks function as error reducing mechanisms in forex transactions
TLDR socialism is autoeffectively unstable

[Anonymous No.14312068]

>>14312027
Wrong. Communism wouldn´t have state at all and most people mean Soviet socialism when they say socialist regime. Democratic socialism is just the thing people mean is "real socialism" when they say something wasn´t "real socialism", but it has never existed and no one knows how it would work.

In your ignorance you probably meant to say something about social democracy, which is still the dominant force of socialism in the west. But there´s no such category as a "social demoratic regime", because socdem exists as a force dragging economic regime from one category to another.

[Anonymous No.14312071]

>>14312050
>People are miserable. Increase in economic production hasn't corresponded to increase in wages since the 1950s.
No shit, thanks to central banking and government interventionism
It's the 1970s though, not the 50s.

We need abolish central banking and free the markets so our living standards actually increase.

[Anonymous No.14312073]

>>14311664
All of them are white people

[Anonymous No.14312082]

>>14312068
You can keep calling people dumb, ignorant, uneducated to make yourself feel better but understand that people around the world are used to using different terms of different systems. A liberal in Europe is different to a liberal in the US.

[Anonymous No.14312087]

>>14312040
Such as not printing too much money in the first place.

[Anonymous No.14312090]

>>14312073
>∆
∆

[Anonymous No.14312097]

>>14312061
That's what your mom said last night.

[Anonymous No.14312106]

>>14312090
Nationalism is not even an economic system, and capitalism can exist in a nationalist state.

[Anonymous No.14312107]

[Anonymous No.14312116]

>>14312071
You realize that neoliberalism started being implemented in the 70s, right?

[Anonymous No.14312122]

>>14312106
yeah, you just need a little more Lebensraum and should turn out fine

[Anonymous No.14312132]

>>14312116
>neoliberalism
neoliberalism isn't even real
we have the largest governments in history, largest debts, largest government spending, much more regulation than the 50s
>b-but reagan lowered taxes a little bit
He just simplified the tax code. The government collected the same amount of tax before reagan than after him.
Nixon got us off the gold standard in 1970, which allowed the federal reserve to destroy the value of our wages and savings and gut our manufacturing base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock

You can really tell if someone is a pseud if they use the term "neoliberalism".

[Anonymous No.14312140]

>>14312106
States motivated by nationalism ala Third Position absolutely have economic systems distinct from capitalism and socialism.

[Anonymous No.14312150]

>>14312035
>anyone who thinks otherwise is fucking delusional
I´m sorry, but I´m afraid you are the one being delusional. Fall of USA would be enough to bring capitalism down and rise of computational technology would be enough to develope alternative, more efficient system.

[Anonymous No.14312157]

>>14312132
IAnd who the fuck is talking about the USA?

[Anonymous No.14312158]

>>14311563
AAAAAAAA MY ALMONDS
THEY ARE BEING HHHHNNNG
ACT... ACTIVATEEEDDDD
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.14312163]

>>14312150
What replaces the US system will not be left wing. The fall of the US is the last domino before the rise of mimetic violence and strive for autarky.

[Anonymous No.14312164]

not literature.

[Anonymous No.14312174]

>>14312082
No, it's just that people in the US use words incorrectly due to inferiour intelectual capacity. Which means their Babel-tier terminology is to be ignored.

[Anonymous No.14312176]

>>14311936
Capitalism is a natural outgrowth of human behavior, that is why you can only stop it with horrific and immoral repression.

People are not equal and trying to force them to be is wrong.

[Anonymous No.14312180]

>>14312140
Yes. What I'm saying is that nationalism isn't necessarily conflicting with capitalism. I am aware though, that it was usually not the exact choice of nationalist states historically. However, from what I know, most nationalist states were mostly capitalist with modifications.

[Anonymous No.14312182]

>>14312163
It might not be leftwing, but it won't be capitalism either.

[Anonymous No.14312185]

>>14312176
agreed

[Anonymous No.14312196]

>>14312180
I might be wrong about the last part

[Anonymous No.14312198]

>>14312150
>Fall of USA would be enough to bring capitalism down
No it wouldn't LOL
It would FREE The world to actually HAVE capitalism.
The statist US dollar world reserve system would end and people would be free to develop their economies using free markets.

>develope alternative, more efficient system.
lmao no countries are going to switch to that shit after they got a taste of freedom

[Anonymous No.14312200]

>>14311660
>over the years, his body decomposes and melts into the ground
>the plank eventually collapses

[Anonymous No.14312208]

>>14312176
THIS
Commies are fucking delusional.

[Anonymous No.14312233]

>>14312176
>Capitalism is a natural outgrowth of human behavior
Dumbest post itt. Call again when Sentinelese corporation enters stock exchange.

Humans naturally live in tribes around hundred people, where capitalism wouldn't make sense. Every society above thousands of members can't be described as "natural outgrowth of human behavior", unless the term would end up describing every society ever.

[Anonymous No.14312237]

>>14312176
>that is why you can only stop it with horrific and immoral repression

>mfw my boi Allende implementing socialism democratically and with no blood shed

[Anonymous No.14312241]

>>14312208

[Anonymous No.14312247]

>>14312198
>It would FREE The world to actually HAVE capitalism.
Goddamn, true believers of liberalism always crack me up.

[Anonymous No.14312259]

>>14312180
Obviously there are states with characteristics of both just like there are states with characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. They're obviously not what's meant by "capitalism" or "socialism" in the comic just like nationalist states with other characteristics are not what's meant by "nationalism" in this one.

[Anonymous No.14312280]

>>14312233
Before we go in a bit deeper conversation, please answer this question. Why is a hundred member tribe natural and a 10000 member small civilization not?

[Anonymous No.14312309]

>>14312280
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
Once tribes go over that number, the tribe splits. It's natural mechanism of human expansion. In order to go above that number you need to develop formal culture where people who don't know about each other cooperate in an effective way (e.g. respect common authority, common currency and common law).

[Anonymous No.14312314]

>>14312247
Seriously, how funny can you be? Those of us who used to support capitalism are the laughing stock of the liberal left these days. It's like...the last nine months have been the worst of the last four decades. I have completely lost respect for this last decade and its counterparts.

[Anonymous No.14312320]

>>14312176
Wow, you are a complete and utter moron. "People not being equal" has nothing to do with ownership of the means of production.

[Anonymous No.14312324]

>>14312233
Free enterprise and exchange makes sense and is mutually beneficial at nearly every group size.

[Anonymous No.14312331]

>>14312320
It sort of does, if people are unequal then it opens up the idea that some people are so superior that it's best for them to control the means of production.

[Anonymous No.14312334]

>>14312320
I agree with you that the failure to achieve socialism will not lead to anarchy in the US, but it does add another dimension to "you didn't know that" after years of being told the same thing. You are leaving out several important points to discredit capitalism (referred to numerous times in this thread). I actually have better ideas in the area of "discipline" rather than decentralization.

[Anonymous No.14312340]

>>14312320
Most self proclaimed socialists aim to make people more 'equal' and they think income inequality is a problem. As long ass some people are smarter, stronger or harder working people will be unequal in any fair system.

[Anonymous No.14312341]

>>14311569
>rich people pay taxes
lol kys

[Anonymous No.14312342]

>>14312324
>Grugg's sticks and stones.jpeg
I wonder how does your family operate. Do you pay your wife for your dinners? Does your wife pay you for using the stove you bough? Do your kids pay rent?

[Anonymous No.14312345]

assuming that the that's an 11ft board (not a standard cut length, but the only realistic one based on this artists poor grasp on the human anatomy), and applying the proportional height to the men, then guesstimated body weight via a BMI calculator, capitalism is not heavy enough to support socialism when its so far from the fulcrum point. socialism will fall off the cliff without any action on capitalism's part.

[Anonymous No.14312346]

>>14312331
It's something of a bait and switch kind of thing, that if you're being able to make more money you might be less worried about people not having sufficient resources for a living.

The topic comes up in a new podcast with The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill. The conversation is titled, How We Think, the Fight Against Poverty, and includes a lot of criticisms about what black conservatives like Scahill see

[Anonymous No.14312353]

>>14312331
People who put in the investment and work to create a successful enterprise deserve to own it and its profits yes. How can anybody who claims to be a good person say otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14312359]

>>14312345
And it would bring capitalism with itself, unless it reacts fast enough.

[Anonymous No.14312367]

>>14312342
Adult children are expected to pay rent in most societies if they still live at home.

[Anonymous No.14312371]

>>14312340
So of course the first step is to expose any and all inequalities and why they exist and therefore widen the gap. Income inequality is only a symptom and always will be so it is ok that we will never have 100% equality.

I don't consider the idea of a wage tax a bad one since everyone is aware that pay is a determining factor in how people live.

[Anonymous No.14312372]

>>14312331
But people being unequal is just a fact. It doesn't 'open up' anything. Capitalism gives ownership of the means of production to unemployed parasitic layabouts, rather than to people with jobs. That's not some meritocratic arrangement.

[Anonymous No.14312379]

>>14312309
>the wiki link
Durnbar's number from what I just read "is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person."
You don't have to maintain a relationship with each member of a tribe for it not to fall apart. Nothing to add here.
>Once tribes go over that number, the tribe splits. It's natural mechanism of human expansion.
As you can see, we managed to hold bigger civilizations than that thousands of years ago. We learnt how to maintain a bigger tribe and learning is natural.
>In order to go above that number you need to develop formal culture where people who don't know about each other cooperate in an effective way (e.g. respect common authority, common currency and common law).
Culture develops by itself as the number of people increases, which in turn buy your makes your argument self defeating.

[Anonymous No.14312380]

>>14312367
However, payments are actually taxed in many countries. They include: Mortgage Interest

Long Term Debt

Life Insurance

Vacation Rent

Fees for Living in Apartments

Research indicates that this is actually a highly subsidized type of housing. For example, in Denmark, long term rent is tax free, and long term mortgages are tax-exempt.

[Anonymous No.14312384]

>>14312367
>Adult children are expected to pay rent in most societies if they still live at home.
>most societies
I'm certain that's wrong

also
>Adult children

[Anonymous No.14312393]

>>14311573
>>14311563
how come both of you manage to be so incredibly retarded

[Anonymous No.14312396]

>>14312346
This doesn't really build off of what I said at all...

>>14312353
They deserve it so long as their company is not harmful to the nation in aggregate and those profits are not put to use in a way that his harmful to the nation in aggregate.

>>14312372
I didn't say it was but if we're accepting that there are people superior enough that they should own the means of production, then the ideal mode of production is obviously not a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Anonymous No.14312398]

>>14312384
should pay to be adopted as children

sounds like Child's Rights

I'm also not sure that more parental resources means a better society

[Anonymous No.14312399]

>>14312345
impossibly based poster

[Anonymous No.14312415]

>>14312379
>You don't have to maintain a relationship with each member of a tribe for it not to fall apart.
Yes, you have. Once you go over, cliques form and those cliques fight with each other until there's a split. Do you want me to cite further research?

>Culture develops by itself
>We learnt how to maintain a bigger tribe and learning is natural.
That's what I meant by "unless the term would end up describing every society ever." By that logic North Korean system is just as natural as the American one and just as natural as hunter-gather bands, rendering the term omni-descriptive and thus meaningless.

[Anonymous No.14312441]

>>14312396
>there are people superior enough that they should own the means of production
People differ in the strength of their talents, and in the current marketability of those talents. That doesn't imply some sort of metaphysical category of "supermen" that treats the rest of the population as disposable slaves.

>obviously not a dictatorship of the proletariat.
That would also rule out democracy or representative government in general.

[Anonymous No.14312461]

>>14312359
>>14312372
>>14312371
>>14312341
Capitalism is a former navy seal who keeps in shape by nailing local housewives in off hunting season
He will have no problem jumping off in time and generally adjusting to Socialism's demise, but rather thriving in perpetuity
god bless him

[Anonymous No.14312488]

>>14312441
I don't think you need a metaphysical category of supermen in order to have a group of people who are superior to the point that they should own the means of production as opposed to communism where you have the inferior masses running it or capitalism where you have a selection process for owners that does not select specifically for those who are superior. But if people are unequal you must have some group of people at the top of the distribution that, through some inhumanly complicated dynamic of measures, are the best people to own the means of production.

>That would also rule out democracy or representative government in general.
I don't support universal democracy by any means but nothing I said wholly rules out democracy. Democracies are not necessarily dictatorships of the proletariat, in fact most democracies are overwhelmingly liberal capitalist. Frankly I think you could have some form of democracy for any of the major 3 economic systems the West has worked its way through.

[Anonymous No.14312508]

>>14311630
>socialism is capitalism with some regulation and taxes

[Anonymous No.14312521]

>>14312415
>Yes, you have. Once you go over, cliques form and those cliques fight with each other until there's a split. Do you want me to cite further research?
I believe that *developed* at the absolute beginning of civilizations. But then again we learnt, which I will expand more on in the answer to your next argument. Also yes, would be appreciated if you could link some more research on it. Probably an interesting read.
>That's what I meant by "unless the term would end up describing every society ever." By that logic North Korean system is just as natural as the American one and just as natural as hunter-gather bands, rendering the term omni-descriptive and thus meaningless.

So about human learning. From learning to climb a tree for fruits, to learning strategies on how to hunt animals bigger and stronger than yourself. From learning about how material lying on the ground can be turned into tools, to learning how to maintain an expanding tribe. All of it is natural. That being said let's turn to your other point saying that all societies can not be natural. You see, "natural" is a large term. For example see North Korea. The absolute oppression and totalitarianism is cause by a natural human instinct for power. However the system this human has implemented on his people is unnatural.

[Anonymous No.14312537]

>>14312415
Crap, just noticed the clock. I have to wake up early tomorrow, so can't continue our argument anymore. Thanks for the conversation.

[Anonymous No.14312563]

>>14312521
>Also yes, would be appreciated if you could link some more research on it.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756541/
Naroll (1956) concluded, from an analysis of maximum village size in 30 small scale societies, that there is a critical threshold at ~ 500 individuals beyond which social cohesion depends on having a top-down authoritarian organisational structure, associated with the emergence of specialist social, political and economic roles. (It is not clear what the relationship between maximum and mean community size is, but it is noteworthy that Naroll's maximum value threshold corresponds to one of the layers of interest.) While the Hutterites have historically seen hierarchical organisations as one step too far, preferring instead to limit community size by fission so as to manage communities through peer pressure (Olsen, 1987), Israeli kibbutzim have typically responded by reducing the advantages offered by leaving to join the external world (e.g. by allowing merit-based inequalities in salary and out-work, or by hiring external labour for menial tasks) (Abramitzky, 2011) perhaps in order to facilitate a larger workforce on commercial farms. However, intriguingly, secular kibbutzim (which necessarily lack a religious framework to provide a policing function) have responded by increasing levels of surveillance over residents in order to enforce conformity to the kibbutz's ideals: mean detrended community size (+ 44.9 ± 44.9SE, N = 38) is larger for kibbutzim that have surveillance mechanisms than for those that do not (− 14.7 ± 13.4SE, N = 184) (Fig. 4; t220 = − 1.66, p = 0.049 1-tailed since we test a directional hypothesis).


cont.

[Anonymous No.14312566]

>>14312488
>have a group of people who are superior to the point that they should own the means of production as opposed to communism where you have the inferior masses running it

Owning it =/= Running it. The distinction is important.

>nothing I said wholly rules out democracy
It does, though. If the inferior plebs can't even be trusted to run their own factories, why should they have any input into selecting the nation's leaders? Only a monarchy or aristocracy is consistent with what you're proposing.

[Anonymous No.14312600]

>>14312521
>However the system this human has implemented on his people is unnatural.
No, sorry. Opression and violence is not not natural. Saying that the state is super natural is just taking metaphysics of liberalism to it's absurd conclusion. Every state maintains monopoly on violence and to some degree enforces it's will on it's people. Violence and opression are just as natural and peace and freedom. In fact, one of the first major advancement of economic organization was slavery.

[Anonymous No.14312629]

>>14312566
>Owning it =/= Running it. The distinction is important.
The owners choose who runs it. Of course if you have subpar owners then naturally you'll have opportunists take advantage of them and run it how they want to personally run it. But if the owners are truly the superior owners, they're not going to open themselves up to petty opportunists.

>It does, though. If the inferior plebs can't even be trusted to run their own factories, why should they have any input into selecting the nation's leaders
Democracy isn't universally universal. You could have a state where suffrage is only extended to a certain group of people, whether that's landowners, people above a certain education, people who pass a certain intelligence test, people of a specific race, etc. Universal suffrage is cancer but I don't think there's any need to throw the baby out with the bath water. I guess if you want to play semantics you could say that what I'm describing is more of an oligarchy, but there is voting population and every democracy prior ot the 20th century had a restricted, nonuniversal suffrage.

[Anonymous No.14312684]

>>14312247
Why does the truth anger you bootlickers so fucking much? lol
If one of these third world shitholes said fuck you to the petrodollar, and allowed their own currency to RISE and freed their markets allowing much more economic production, then YES living standards for the working class will dramatically rise in this country.
Why are you leftists such brainwashed retards?

[Anonymous No.14312825]

>>14311714
Pinochet

[Anonymous No.14312837]

>>14311573
Why are they white? Make the couple black and muslim.

[Anonymous No.14312840]

>>14312684
>If one of these third world shitholes said fuck you to the petrodollar..
..he would most likely be a socialist.

[Anonymous No.14312850]

OK BOOMER

[Anonymous No.14312852]

>>14312840
>..he would most likely be a socialist.
A socialist would remove petrodollar and implement their own retarded inflationary currency that enslaves the working class.
A libertarian government would abolish the petrodollar and implement sound money so living standards for the working class actually increase as prices fall and people can actually buy things from the rest of the world.

Increasing purchasing power of a currency so people can buy consumer and capital goods from the rest of the world is HOW countries get rich and stop being third world shitholes.

[Anonymous No.14312859]

>>14312852
You're delusional.

[Anonymous No.14312860]

>>14312837
Because real communism, the kind that actually existed and was used by the USSR and China was socially conservative. I'm not a commie but i have to give them credit for not tolerating things the west does

[Anonymous No.14312891]

>>14312859
Your coping at reality and it's obvious.
Fuck central banking, fuck government intervention and fuck socialism.
I don't want to live in poverty with you animals.

[Anonymous No.14312896]

>>14312852
There are no "libertarians" outside of US.

[Anonymous No.14312915]

>>14312891
Have you ever gone an hour without thinking about central banking?

[Anonymous No.14312928]

>>14312896
>There are no "libertarians" outside of US.
Then why does Brazil have a massive libertarian movement and all the anime avatars on twitter are literally all extreme ancaps?
>>14312915
Have you ever once thought about central banking?
Probably not, you just let it destroy your life and blame capitalism when your wages stagnate and everyone around you is a debt slave.
Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.14312950]

>>14312928
>Then why does Brazil have a massive libertarian movement
It doesn´t. Twitter ain´t congress. "Anime avatars don´t repre...oh wait you are joking.

[Anonymous No.14312956]

>>14312928
>Have you ever once thought about central banking?
Of course. The fact that I oppose it doesn't seem to register with you, though. You just keep droning on about how much I love central banking regardless.

[Anonymous No.14312981]

>>14312508
>and mass welfare programs designed to reduce inequality, mass education, pensions, progressive income tax etc etc
The West became Socialist in the 30s as it became clear capitalism wasn't working properly during the great depression

[Anonymous No.14312998]

>>14312896
nah, it's just the American idea of Libertarian is an anti-welfare state republican who thinks everyone should just get off their arse and stop being poor

real Libertarianism exists bountifully outside of the US and is actually a highly successful, empowering and compassionate individualist system of civilisation

[Anonymous No.14313017]

>>14312950
Meh, brazil's libertarian movement is pretty big
>>14312956
>that I oppose it
I bet you actually don't.

[Anonymous No.14313034]

>>14313017
See what I mean? Keep shadowboxing, little buddy.

[Anonymous No.14313042]

>>14313034
what's your political ideology then?

[Anonymous No.14313048]

>>14312998
>real Libertarianism exists bountifully outside of the US
Then how come I never heard about "libertarian party" outside of US? The term is pretty much only used only by americans and fringes of internet people.

[Anonymous No.14313097]

>>14313042
Banking in general needs to be abolished. It is based fundamentally on fraud.

[Anonymous No.14313644]

>everybody arguing in this thread
Well? What's the answer, then?
>and why is it taking women's rights away?

[Anonymous No.14313699]

>>14312950
>doesn´t
>´
I will fucking end you

[Anonymous No.14313731]

>>14311773
people arent supposed to rely on their government. also the government should not hold any power it has today

[Anonymous No.14313805]

>>14311998
$3 a day is still not that good

[Anonymous No.14313819]

>>14313805
Accept it, you filthy prole. You're lucky to getting anything. Now get back to work!

[Anonymous No.14313857]

>2020
>faggots still trying to revive a 19th century meme
Holy shit shut the fuck up. You have no real vision or ideas, you're just bitter uncreative losers who's been left in the dust decades ago. If you have nothing new to say keep your head down and spare the rest of the world your resentment fueled chimp out. You're the losers trying to revive absolutionist monarchies while Napoleon is ready to pounce. Please kys. Let your betters do the intellectual thinking

[Anonymous No.14313916]

>>14313048
>Then how come I never heard about "libertarian party" outside of US?
because i was talking complete shit to entertain myself.

yet, the fact remains, libertarianism is by no means a reactionary philosophy, except in the case of american politicians co-opting the term for laissez-faire capitalism

(the clue is if you see principles of individualist freedom applied to 'private interests', you've got american libertarianism)

[Anonymous No.14313975]

whats the problem?

[Anonymous No.14314150]

>>14312825
>the Chicago school of economics was fascist
Are you fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.14314235]

>>14311714
petit fascism in south america, a la banzer, videla, etc were assisted by the US government and in some cases literal exonerated nazi officials (re: klaus barbie). though the US eventually opposed them after several years having served their purpose. then there's the german BND (basically the CIA of west germany) that was infamously staffed by ex-nazis, again exonerated by the US.

the west has a history of instrumentalizing fascism. communism, not so much. there's an obvious disparity here and the reason for its existence is self evident.

[Anonymous No.14314242]

>>14311573
the irony of someone who believes in a communist utopia but laughs at religious fundamentalists is almost unfathomable

[Anonymous No.14314284]

I see /lit/ is as politically savvy as /pol/.

[Anonymous No.14314304]

>>14311998
>he believes the poverty reduction meme
Reddit-tire

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html
>"Exposing the great 'poverty reduction' lie"
>"The UN claims that its Millennium Development Campaign has reduced poverty globally, but some measures show it is worse."

[Anonymous No.14314350]

>>14314304
>duh my self-serving stats beat YOUR self-serving stats

there is no graph r scatter plot that can change the fact that every year more and more rural villages get water and means to deal with diseases, etc. poverty=being addressed better by capitalists than socialists ever could. go figure

[Anonymous No.14314393]

>>14314350
>poverty=being addressed better by capitalists than socialists ever could
Is this a joke or are you just being an american? Most of the poverty eradication has been done in China by coast->mainland re-distributive policies.

[Anonymous No.14314398]

>>14314393
>china
>engaging in genuine humanitarianism
jesus christ, you probably believe fulan gong is a death cult

[Anonymous No.14314408]

>why yes I'm a socialist, how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.14314437]

>>14311946
Socialism is entirely taxation.

[Anonymous No.14314468]

>>14314398
>Implying anyone stated anything about "genuine humanitarianism"
I can see you glow.

[Anonymous No.14314503]

>>14314437
So the nordic coutries are prosperous examples of socialism. Good to know.

[Anonymous No.14314530]

>>14314468
>brings up humanitarianism
>looks like an idiot
>lol but you can't even make a statment about it though
lol wot?

[Anonymous No.14314616]

>>14314235
Ex-Nazis were also fighting in the French Foreign Legion but that doesn't make post-war France fucking fascist. Military dictatorships aren't automatically fascist and I know you know this. Peron is the only one that even gets close to fascism in South America. The West has a history of crushing fascism anywhere it exists.

[Anonymous No.14314644]

>>14311708
first time I ever see someone make this argument, and it's ignored again... I try to make this argument for a long time. people just ignore it like it's convenient to keep things confusing.
for me this is so obvious, that I felt like I was missing something somehow. I feel validated, thanks, anon.

[Anonymous No.14314655]

>>14313975
this is basically soviet Russia. it went on for awhile, but eventually collapsed.

[Anonymous No.14314660]

>>14314644
The ignore you because you're a fucking retard, socialism was explicitly made as an economic system. I'm on the far right and I know this

[Anonymous No.14314671]

>>14312090
Based

[Anonymous No.14314684]

>>14313097
Turns out cops still exist. He gets arrested a few hours later after a local hiker calls in the shooting.

[Anonymous No.14314699]

>>14314660
he is saying that capitalism is just free choice. it's not planned economy like socialism is. two completely different category of things that are compared as if they were the same.

[Anonymous No.14314716]

>>14314616
the french government never went out of their way to exonerate and hire nazis though. on the contrary, they tried and imprisoned the butcher of lyon after the US attempted to hide him for decades. in fact they went as far as protecting him from mossad nazi hunters, so much for muh greatest ally

besides i never asserted the west outright advocates fascism, they have just weaponized it on numerous occasions as a counter-revolutionary measure, before summarily shutting it down afterwards. (bolivia being a great example of this, installing a dictatorship then overthrowing it years later, peak keynesianism).

it has never been about fascism, it has just been about NOT being socialism

[Anonymous No.14314722]

>>14311700
I'm screenshotting this. wtf happened to /lit/

[Anonymous No.14314724]

>>14311602
natsoc is already in the grave

[Anonymous No.14314726]

>>14311563
t. burgoid

[Anonymous No.14314747]

>>14311667
I feel GDP describes a country's wealth about as well as height describes health.

[Anonymous No.14314755]

>>14311563
That wooden board? Is barack obama

[Anonymous No.14314769]

>>14314747
>tfw manlet
what's wrong with me, doc?

[Anonymous No.14314793]

>>14311708
>Isn't socialism a form of government and capitalism a market system?
No. Capitalism is the economic regime in which Capital (the source of income) is owned and controlled by people other than those who make it work through their labor. Socialism is the opposite -- in other words, roughly the economic equivalent of democracy. Capitalism doesn't require a market system, nor does socialism forbid one. Market socialism is indeed the most popular version.

>>14314644
>first time I ever see someone make this argument, and it's ignored again
It's ignored because it's just flat-out wrong.

>>14314699
>capitalism is just free choice. it's not planned economy like socialism is
No, "planning" has nothing to do with it. Socialism is just ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves rather than by a parasitic capital class. It has nothing to do with markets or "free choice".

[Anonymous No.14314826]

>>14314699
>capitalism is not planned
What happens if I don't follow the laws and regulations of the government in a capitalist state?

>>14314716
>the french government never went out of their way to exonerate and hire nazis
This is explicitly what the US did. The FFL was full of ex-SS officers in Vietnam too. The West has never in its history thrown its full weight behind a fascist regime. They outright fought the original fascists, undermined the Spanish and Portuguese, and overthrew the Ba'athists.

[Anonymous No.14314980]

>>14314793
capitalism is just let people do whatever they want
socialism is taking things from people to give to people that supposedly deserve to make things supposedly fair. morally justifying it basing it on an ideology written by a a couple of guys.

you need a government to enforce socialism and you need the ideology to justify it. capitalism can exist anywhere where there are two parts wanting to exchange goods.

[Anonymous No.14314994]

>>14314980
Very funny.

[Anonymous No.14315082]

>>14311630

[Anonymous No.14315100]

>>14311762
Reminder that she had autism.

>At 9, she decided to become a writer; by 11 she’d written four novels, each of which revolved around a heroine exactly her age but blonde, blue-eyed, tall, and leggy. (Rand was—by her own standards—unheroically dark, short, and square.) At 13, she declared herself an atheist. It’s hard not to suspect, based on many of these childhood anecdotes, that Rand suffered from some kind of undiagnosed personality disorder. Once, when a teacher asked her to write an essay about the joys of childhood, she wrote a diatribe condemning childhood as a cognitive wasteland—a joyless limbo in which adult rationality had yet to fully develop. (It was possibly a good thing that she never had children.) In middle school she found herself uncharacteristically intrigued by another student, a seemingly intelligent girl who was also popular—a contradiction in the Rand cosmology. Hoping to solve the mystery, and possibly even make a friend, Rand approached her. “Would you tell me what is the most important thing in life to you?” she asked, showing once again her flair for smooth opening lines. “My mother,” the girl answered. Rand turned away, disgusted. As an adult, she called this exchange “the first most important event in my life socially” and analyzed it as follows: “I had thought she was a serious girl and that she was after serious things, but she was just conventional and ordinary, a mediocrity, and she didn’t mean anything as a person.”

[Anonymous No.14315107]

>>14313097
This is false, banking can and had existed in anarchism.
Fractional reserve banking is what is fraudulent.

[Anonymous No.14315545]

>>14315107
>Fractional reserve banking is what is fraudulent.
Banking just means money creation via credit extension. Financial institutions that merely store or invest or lend without increasing the money supply are by definition not banks.

[Anonymous No.14315701]

>>14311667
>predict quantitative easing requirements months in advance
economics can't predict anything

[Anonymous No.14315733]

>>14312860
Reactionary Incel bullshit. We neo-marxists have corrected these old white men

[Anonymous No.14316164]

[Anonymous No.14316183]

>>14316164
You need to get a job if you think making this kind of shit is worth your time.

[Anonymous No.14316198]

>>14316183
Trust me, it's totally worth his time.

[Anonymous No.14316200]

>>14311700
>40% - 50% = socialism with some free trade
why did i laugh so hard at this

[Anonymous No.14316239]

>>14316183

[Anonymous No.14316252]

>>14311563
if you let corporations run themselves with no goverment regulations they will eventually create their own goverment to regulate themselves and it will be even worse
mankind is a fucking joke, there is no future. I only hope that whatever crazy mess inherits the earth gets a better genetic make up

[Anonymous No.14316278]

>>14315100
She seems like quite a character!

[Anonymous No.14316281]

>>14316239
BTFO

[Anonymous No.14316344]

>>14316239
my sides, thanks for the laughs anon

[Anonymous No.14316346]

>>14316183
So you admit labour has value because it takes time

[Anonymous No.14316353]

>>14313731
>people arent supposed to rely on their government.
kek, look at this ideology. You're actually against capitalism them.

[Anonymous No.14316668]

>>14315545
>Banking just means money creation via credit extension.
No, that's FRB.
A free market bank is just a place that holds your money for you and allows people to invest their money if they so wish.

[Anonymous No.14316725]

>>14316239
top kek

[Anonymous No.14316781]

Just rename the board Random/Literature or replace it with /sm/ - Smartypants Stuff already.

[Anonymous No.14316946]

>>14314716
Capitalism and Communism fought side by side to stop Fascism, which at the end the USSR was aloud to take half of Europe.
The US has supported Cuba's communist revolutions well as China's
And in today's world any sort of movement that even is somewhat similar to Fascism even in the slightest way is met with great hostility or even imprisonment, while marxist socialist run rampant through our Universities and streets in these Capitalist countries that are oh so against socialism.
We even see rising capitalist social media corporations having no tolerance for anything authoritarian and spiritual .
You guys love to pretend you are the true redpill, the real repressed intellectuals, but major events of history and of the modern era suggest otherwise

[Anonymous No.14318204]

>>14316946
bump

[Anonymous No.14318418]

>>14311735
Corporate taxes should be low below the corporation's stakeholders (specially employees+owners) already get taxed and it's preferable that such taxation is progressive. So the biggest shareholders and wage-earners (the top execs) are taxed at greater rates than the smallest shareholders and wage-earners. With smaller corporate taxes, these companies grow more (either hiring more or issuing more shares or both) and more cash is transfered to the stakeholders who can them be taxed progressively in a way that a corporation can't (because corps are really bundles of both rich, poor and every other stakeholders' interests and pooled resources).

That said, USA's corporate taxation is briken because it is so much easier for bigger corps to evade taxes compared to smaller corps.

[Anonymous No.14318423]

What would socialists even do anymore if they dont have capitialism to bitch about anymore?

[Anonymous No.14318428]

>>14316946

You’re actually delusional. It is entirely apparent that the United States opposes communism and has always opposed it. Geopolitical alliances of convenience against immediate enemies have nothing to do with the existential threat that communism poses to the ruling class of capitalist global powers. Capitalists also fight amongst each other for dominance, and Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan initiated a globally significant war effort against the power bloc of the allies, attempting to build their own power at the expense of countries like the UK, France and the US. None of these countries liked the USSR, and initially they hoped Hitler would be an opportunity to weaken the USSR. But given the circumstances that Hitler conquered Europe, Japan was attacking the United States and the USSR was being invaded, it was convenient to ally with the USSR to crush Hitler and then deal with the consequences of that later, as the entire Cold War was about. Even benefitting from the rift between China and the USSR was dissolving lucrative alliances in a socialist bloc of power that US geopolitical strategy held above all else was important to fracture and stop from growing.

And pointing to Cuba as though it were some US ally is clearly a farce. To this day we treat Cuba like it’s some kind of threat even though it is a poor backwater with no significant military capability, and the only reason is because we absolutely don’t want them to have any success. They’ve recently been blamed for “infiltrating” countries like Bolivia and Venezuela, which is just what we call it when a country not aligned with US power attempts to create its own networks of trade and alliances. At its core US opposition to socialism is about power, but it’s different in character to opposition to something like a rival capitalist power. Rival capitalist powers are usually simply a threat to the US based capitalist interests, they want preferential trade deals and corporate espionage that directly benefits them and their shareholders. They’re effectively still playing the game, they want the same things the business owners anywhere else want. But socialist states aren’t just a threat to market position, they could abolish the market and jail or murder these people just for being elites, out of an ideological opposition to the entire game. They’re the real existential threat.

[Anonymous No.14318446]

>>14318423
History tells us they start purging other left alternatives before capitalists are even out of the picture.

[Anonymous No.14318566]

>>14311700
This guy isn't kidding is he...

[Anonymous No.14318858]

>>14311569
>rich people
>doing work

[Anonymous No.14318937]

>>14318428
>and Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan initiated a globally significant war effort against the power bloc of the allies, attempting to build their own power at the expense of countries like the UK, France and the US
>it was convenient to ally with the USSR to crush Hitler
How does anything you're saying in your first point not suggest that capitalism has persecuted Fascism more than anything. Im not suggest capitalism and socialism are not enemys with one and another to some extent, but Fascism is so contrary to both Socialism and Capitalism (which are two ideas that in the abroad sense are both the same focusing on material only, where they only differ in the particular) that there is no way either of them could not be against Fascism as their number one pursuit in foreign affairs.
Now speak upon modern times.

[Anonymous No.14319693]

>>14311665
>"Government spends money on social security" does not mean socialism.
It doesn't, but why almost half of Burgers use the term that way is unsettling to brood on.

[Anonymous No.14319730]

>>14316239
fucking owned

[Anonymous No.14320083]

>>14316239

[Anonymous No.14320455]

>>14311963
Lol. Millennial dumbass

[Anonymous No.14320529]

>>14312061
based Herbusian

[Anonymous No.14320560]

>>14311563
Lenin recognised this with NEP.

[Anonymous No.14320569]

>>14316239
>>14316183

[Anonymous No.14320627]

>>14311975
it depends on how capitalism falls. either way socialism has the best chance of living and the only way capitalism lives is if socialism somehow misses from 4 feet away.