@yogthos Bloody hell. That's not even. It's back to feudalism, presenting the King with gifts in the hope of receiving a favourable glance in the future.
Strap Bezos onto one of his rockets and give him a one-way test flight.
@yogthos ah yeah, in case we didn't get the notion Bezos was pro-slavery that time he tried to get the police to force strikers back to work.
I won't say what I'd like to do to him on account of someone might take it as encouragement and I don't want to be an accessory to that kind of crime. Or in this case, merely an accessory.
@anamauma here's the Seattle Times article https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/this-city-hall-brought-to-you-by-amazon/
@yogthos Hah, the free market! (Also, something like that exists in Belgium, too, and was meant to be a temporary measure to get the economy back on track ... until it stopped being temporary.)
OCR Output (chars: 2182)
Example: Chicago has offered to let
Amazon pocket $1.32 billion in income
taxes paid by its own workers. This is truly
perverse. Called a personal income-tax
diversion, the workers must still pay the
full taxes, but instead of the state getting
the money to use for schools, roads or
whatever, Amazon would get to keep it all
“The result is that workers are, in effect,
paying taxes to their boss,” says a report on
the practice from Good Jobs First, a think
tank critical of many corporate subsidies.
= The Seattle Times Pp
Most of the HQ2 bids had more traditional
sweeteners. Such as Chula Vista,
California, which offered to give Amazon
85 acres of land for free (value: $100
million) and to excuse any property taxes
on HQ2 for 30 years ($300 million). New
Jersey remains the dollar king of the
subsidy sweepstakes, having offered
Amazon $7 billion to build in Newark.
But more of a bellwether to me are
proposals that effectively would put
Amazon inside the government.
Some are small. Boston I has offered to set
up an “Amazon ” of city
employees working on the company’s
behalf. These would include a workforce
coordinator, to help with Amazon’s
employment needs, as wellasa
community- relations official to smooth
over Amazon conflicts throughout Boston.
= The Seattle Times Pp
Fresno promises to funnel 85 percent of all
taxes and fees generated by Amazon intoa
special fund. That money would be
overseen by a board, half made up of
Amazon officers, half from the city. They’re
supposed to spend the money on housing,
roads and parks in and around Amazon.
The proposal shows a park with a sign:
“This park brought to you by Amazon,”
with the company’s smiling arrow
= The Seattle Times Pp
Is it even legal to give a company direct
sway over civic spending like that?
When asked about it, Fresno’s economic-
development director threw the public
interest under the bus.
on would have a
»” he told the Los
Angeles Times. “
You poor fools out on the fringe of town.
All this time you’ve been paying your
taxes, thinking it was for the broader
public good. Suckers.
@mewmew Not sure I’d say this is much to do with ‘late stage capitalism’ so much as ‘government in action’. About five seconds after governments of all stripes figured out that taxes are a thing they figured out that they, or the forgiveness/manipulation thereof, can be used for all sorts of things to direct or encourage/discourage actions. The real question then becomes, why would these cities be willing to do this for Amazon? I somehow doubt it has anything to do with getting better Prime deliveries or such. The logical reason would be the cities in question figure they’ll get more value than the taxes would have directly provided in the long run. It’s like an investment, where the city isn’t necessarily even paying money up front, just forgiving income they otherwise would have gotten. Not saying all these offers and such are equally good or anything of the sort. Just that in the end, the city will benefit more from doing the deal than they would have had they not. At least, one presumes that’s the case or the people running the city are morons, which is hardly unheard of
This oligarchy owns the politicians because they fund their campaigns, they give them bribes, they lobby, and they own the news media that promotes the politicians convenient to the oligarchy.
The reason politicians pass laws that favor the rich is because they're owned by the rich.
@wolfie @mewmew last I checked the worst atrocities consistently happen under capitalism. However, even if it was true that other systems have been worse, thinking that nothing better than capitalism is possible is the height of absurdity.
One must have profound lack of imagination to think that the system they were born into is the best possible. Back before capitalism the same argument was sagely made by lots of dimwits about feudalism.
@yogthos @mewmew If that’s what you came up with when you last checked, you might want to check again. Communism and it’s friends hundred odd million victims would like a word with you. Yeltsin didn’t have his faith in communism utterly destroyed on the battlefield or even by Wall St. All it took was a visit to an American grocery store. Is Capitalism the best system that ever will be? Probably not. Is it better than anything anyone has come up with so far? Yes. This is history’s verdict on the matter. Have a good day
@wolfie @mewmew you have to be quite an ignoramus to think that capitalism killed less people than communism https://eand.co/if-communism-killed-millions-how-many-did-capitalism-kill-2b24ab1c0df7
The verdict is that of an ignoramus who doesn't know the first thing about history. Have a good day.
And what about communism?
I'm sure they are open to climate change discussions, I'm sure they won't censor you and I'm sure they'll care about it
Isn't communist China the number #1 polluter in the world? Isn't it also the one country that refused reduction goals unlike the rest of the west?
As for the 1% meme, listen, read about economy you're just making yourself look silly mate
@yogthos This is infuriating, but at the same time it's almost funny how this "capitalism" is anything but a free market.
How could any new business compete with this?
A giant that the government literally has to bribe the hope that the giant will do what the government want.
@rune I find most tropes associated with capitalism are completely absurd and have nothing to do with reality. Capitalism lifting people out of poverty, free markets, the invisible hand of the market, GDP measuring anything of value, and so on.
@yogthos Exactly. All capitalism seems to be at this point is the population choosing to be governed by whoever has the most money.
That basically sounds exactly like a kingdom...
We're just not quite there yet, there's gotta be a _later_ stage capitalism where America is just divided into the Amazon, Google, and Apple kingdoms.
@yogthos All while the workers themselves break down.
(I'm using a dehumanizing term here for a reason. That's how Amazon treat them.) https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/11/amazon-warehouse-reports-show-worker-injuries/602530/
It is widely known that the followers of the left are egregious ignorants, you're quoting a boomer meme as argument so...
>That's ironic because most of what China does is consumed in the west?
Bahahwha, what does that even mean you silly lolcow?
So it's not pollution because the resources are made into tangible products? Or because it is bought? What if it's something intangible, then it's pollution? Lmao
@rune basically things are going back to the way capitalism worked during Victorian times, and that's how we got revolutions last time around. History is cyclical because people refuse to learn from it.
@yogthos Fortunately for all of us, you may have forgotten that history doesn’t repeat itself. It rhymes... I hope...
Are we supposed to conclude here that since the so-called “1%” have more, all the rest of us somehow have less? Personally, I don’t particularly care that others have more than I do or anyone else. Perhaps we should not try and decide what we do based more on wealth envy than anything else?
Oh, and while reduction of pollution and all that are good things, we’re not going to go extinct any time soon.
Since I decided I am going to bother responding for the moment, I read the link you sent earlier. Here’s the thing with that, to get some huge total that supposedly “capitalism” “killed”, quotes because pretty obvious reasons, they have to stretch the living daylights out of definitions and all reason.
On the other hand, one doesn’t have to jump through any mental gymnastics or twist definitions to directly tie communist policies to the deaths of millions. While no unjust death is good, the terrible truth is that most of those deaths were at the hands of their own governments. For disagreeing. By self-caused famine. Forced relocations. On and on and on. Repression and violence and death on their own people to force them to comply or die. But hey, it’s cool. Everyone was well off and the people were doing well. As long as you were one of the lucky ones at the top, anyway.
I’ve said it before and I’m sure I’ll have to say it again when this reprehensible idea crawls out from the dark yet again. Millions have risked their lives to try and immigrate from one system or descendant system and to the other. It sure as hell wasn’t from capitalist systems to communist ones. They didn’t build the Berlin Wall to keep the west out, but to keep their own people from leaving. Exactly no one has built a home made raft to leave Florida to go to Cuba, yet they still come back the other way. Odd that.
@mister_monster of course, the reason the government is funneling your money to private entities is because it's owned by these entities. When the capitalists own majority of the wealth in the country they get to buy your government.
@0x00 seems like a case of a corporation telling the government what to do as opposed to the other way around
Of course, the most intelligent person in the world can still be immature, for lack of other handy word, in their world view or experience. From my admittedly limited experience and perspective, this is usually what has been lacking. It’s part of why I tend to view such things as more childlike than ‘stupid’. However, there are many dangers in going too far down that road and thus excess should be avoided
@it_wasnt_arson @Elfie @mewmew I suppose it depends on what one is speaking growing “infinitely”. If one is speaking of wealth and economies, then while I hesitate to say ‘infinite’ for pretty obvious reasons, there’s nothing saying it can’t continue to grow within reason. Nothing has really been presented to say otherwise. While it is possible one may run out of finite resources, we’re perfectly capable of going out and getting more or inventing technology that obsolesces those resources we’re running out for example, oil.
I joke, but also a bit serious. Markets don’t care, but consumers and buyers most certainly do. The market isn’t some thing that is apart from us. It isn’t some force on its own. It’s us. It reflects our values and our desires. To use the example given earlier for thinner phones and what not, those sell not because the market says they do but because we do. The success of electric cars, a long time coming I think, and other alternatives is not being dictated from on high by either government or some other force but because we, in the form of the market, want such and thus it is being made
@wolfie @mewmew @Elfie It's really easy to blame people for buying things they're told to buy when there are a handful of people who could write a single email and shut down hundreds of factories (and still afford to keep paying the workers for the rest of their lives). Commodities are produced because people produce them and market them.
Disposable electronics sucks. Period. Of course, there’s tons of push back against that as there should be. It’s about time, too. I’m not saying things are perfect as they definitely are not. I’m saying we don’t have to give up all we’ve accomplished or possibly worse, force the rest of the world that has yet to catch up with some of us not to do so. It just needs to continue in the direction of more sustainable ways. I don’t personally believe we need some huge government action or need to overturn all there is to accomplish this. Things are already moving in that direction, even if not necessarily as fast as optimum
@mewmew @Elfie @it_wasnt_arson I tend to think that while people can be selfish and all that, they tend to be more price conscious than anything else. Making sustainable products tend to cost more and people aren’t demanding it as much. You can’t really force them to though. Not unless one wants to advocate for a gun to the head of everyone who buys anything that isn’t approved, no?
@mewmew @Elfie @it_wasnt_arson Hmmm.. fair enough. I think my point is that while people can be selfish, they also aren’t always automatically short sighted and won’t care at all. I think the problem is more than for most people in most situations, they simply don’t understand or believe there is a real problem.
Not sure if that makes sense or not though?
@yogthos OK, that's one take on it. I'm gonna go with Occam's razor on this one and say its because people in Chicago elected a bunch of corrupt pieces of shit, the flaws in the political system notwithstanding.
@wolfie @mewmew @Elfie Paying workers less means more profits. Keeping people around who can't afford to buy anything other than your products means more profits. There is no benefit to paying workers any more than the absolute minimum they can get away with, especially if you can ensure that they feed their income right back into the company. The only recourse is worker organization, which is when the company brings forced arbitration to bear and calls the cops on strikers.
@mewmew @Elfie @it_wasnt_arson Possibly, but possibly not. If I’m correct, which is not entirely proven, it is less a fault of the system per se and more one of education and knowledge. In short, people do X because they don’t believe or aren’t aware that either alternatives exist or they are needed
@mewmew @Elfie @it_wasnt_arson I might be able to buy that in 1980, but it’s a lot harder in 2019/2020 when one can look up whatever one wants. It’s also hard to accept when the phrase “climate denial” is a thing thus implying if not requiring that the vast overwhelming number of people agree that X is true.
That said, climate change isn’t a particularly amazing example for the previous point. It’s been politicized to such a great degree where we’re talking more about patriarchy (for example) than we are sustainable industry
@it_wasnt_arson @mewmew @Elfie There’s “something may need a political solution” and “we’re conflating everything in the universe and trying to tie it all to the problem de jure so we can get traction on our pet projects”
The so-called patriarchy has nothing to do with sustainability, pollution, or anything else. The point I was trying to make, and badly apparently, was that by doing so it muddies the waters and leads to people being able to deny that X is true, because it’s been tied to everything under the sun
I think it is, because it encompasses human history as a whole, through history you can observe every political and economical model as well as their ethics
When you have practical proof of an idea then there isn't much ground to remain in theory or ring around the Rosie
Or it works or it doesn't
@wolfie It in fact does, maybe not to the extent that some other things have to do with it, but there's a lot to be analyzed in a very complex world
@it_wasnt_arson If one is intending to replace the entire system with one of their own choosing, then sure. Otherwise, not so much. When the only relationship between issue ABC and XYZ are that they supposedly occur within the same macro-system, linking them isn’t required and is probably harmful to solving one or the other of the issues
@wolfie I'd argue that
-it should never have been made
-people should not be able to benefit from taking the decision to make it
-the fact that there exists such a demand for it is a symptom of a fundamentally flawed transportation system that needs to be reoriented toward mass transit
@it_wasnt_arson In other words, correct me if I’m mistaken, force a command economy where people are only allowed to produce and consume those things deemed sufficiently ‘proper’ by whatever authority deems such. If I’m mistaken, let me know but that’s how that would seem to read, no?
In short though, as a billionaire you probably would be in charge of ‘things’ and thus have great sway in what those things do. However, it doesn’t mean we’re all slaves or screwed or need to take them down or whatever to make better choices. We are the market
@wolfie @mewmew @jookia @Elfie But they are also the market. Any action we take as consumers or workers is an attempt to indirectly convince them to take a direct action. Their word is a command on threat of starvation for thousands of people. They can outbid a hundred people's yearly income on a whim and never notice the spending.
@wolfie Put the decision of what to produce in the hands of the people doing the work to produce it. Dismantle the concept of property as exclusive and exclusionary rights to goods. Respect people's choices about their own lives as fully as possible, giving them the freedom to do so by providing for them. Build communities where people care about each other. Use automation to free people from work rather than depriving them of the right to live when they become useless to their boss.
@it_wasnt_arson Uhm.. sounds good on paper but congrats, you’ve arrived at communism. At least on paper anyway or so it sounds. We’ve been down that road several times and it’s a bloody and unpleasant one. I also like the idea of automation and what not making things easier for people. It sounds lovely. However, until and unless we have the resources of the Federation, that’s not how that story ends. History speaks very loudly and very clearly on this point
Oh sure, sure I don't deny your point
I'm just saying that while marketing doesn't override freedom of thought it is indeed the foremost thing influencing people and the one thing that should've been regulated long ago
When products started to associate themselves with emotions
@wolfie No shit I've arrived at communism. Not that nowhere did I mention the existence of a state that tells people what to produce based on central commands.
@it_wasnt_arson A leads to B as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. To say otherwise is the same tired refrain of “This time it’ll be different” and its good pal, “If only we had the right people in charge…”
It’s much the same with communism’s other other great issues, crimes and so on. Blood, fire, death and disease. Hard pass, thanks :)
@Elfie Maybe you'd know about economic, cultural, and political ways to counter that if you actually tried to think about it or research things people have been talking about for the past 150 years or so
Oh, so you know a way to fix humanity, the environment, politics, culture, economy and everything ever?
Please do tell me
When products started to associate themselves with emotions
You mean sometime in WhateverBC? :D
It’s always been that way to one degree or another. It does influence, though lord knows how and why. I may have a biased view on this due to my very strong belief in personal choice and that generally speaking, I find marketing ineffective for the most part
@wolfie What if, instead of trying to have the right people in charge..... we didn't have anyone in charge, and weren't immediately invaded by the US or USSR
@it_wasnt_arson Haha, well, thing with that is that you’d likely find that society would trends more towards ancap as that tends to be more inline with people’s natural tendencies when left alone. More productive as well. I could get onboard with that
We have a lot of population, but we’re not running out of water or much of anything else. Well, except maybe oil. I say maybe because I know the media insists that’s the case but that’s been what’s been said for.. well, I’ve no idea really. In any case, point is, things were way worse. They are trending generally better. Not to say great or perfect or anything of the sort. Just better. I could go through all the statistics but we’ve honestly been at this for a while now and I’ll be honest and say I’ve other things to do and trust you can look them up if you’re so inclined
@wolfie ancaps are a joke and if you think capitalism arises naturally from inherent human tendencies then you're so soaked in propaganda that nothing I say now will help anyway. Just think about it.
@it_wasnt_arson In small groups, people tend to be more cooperative. Once societies cross a certain barrier, which is admittedly less a hard line and more a fuzzy zone, they tend to shift towards more complex economic models. In other words, people work for their own benefit. Be it in the form of money, education, experience, or even just simply food. That’s true throughout history, or would you say that you’d be happy to work for your fellow man for nothing in return but his thanks? Forever?
@wolfie I'd be happy to take care of people however I can in a world where I would also be taken care of by others
@it_wasnt_arson The world you speak of does not, and will not exist. People will likely be kind and generous to others, up to a point. However, there is unquestionably a point where they can and will nope out and take care of themselves and their people. It is at that point that either there is a benefit for them to continue, or nope out they will.
So, again, why would they?
Still doesn't apply to most western countries
And you got it wrong my dude, it's backwards, the places that have it worse are the ones with state actions on behalf of the workers
Socialist economies rule over and the successful and the provider of goods in place of the masses that do not produce goods or income (at a national scale) which if you take to the logical conclusion or look up countries that do what you said will lead you to impoverished nations that can be characterized by debt, lacking personal/economical freedoms, lacking infrastructure, underdeveloped society, etc
Socialist economies ruling for the masses are socially and economically unviable, they are a spiral of degeneration that only result in social/economical collapse or the stablishment of a dictatorship
Source: I live there
@wolfie @mewmew @jookia @Elfie With the advent of fracking, peak oil has been pushed back to the point that if we reached it, we would have enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause a runaway cloud albedo chain reaction, entirely stripping the earth of stratocumulus cloud cover, melting the ice caps enough to flood coastal population centers and making large portions of the earth entirely uninhabitable as heat waves destroy crops and heatstroke threatens New Yorkers in spring.
So you have no idea but like to sound smart while saying complete bullshit
Figured you out so quick, was fun though
And capitalism isn't except of unfairness, my point is that you're being contrarian because you're a silly cunt
@wolfie @mewmew @jookia @Elfie A world in which we burn all the oil we can extract would mean the end of human civilization, probably the human species entirely, and a mass extinction not seen in 55 million years. It would transcend the notion of an environmental disaster to become a paleontological disaster, a permanent scar on the fossil record of the Earth and on all life on it.
But why climate change?
Do mention that the for the billionaire to remain in power it needs people to be educated, feed and wealthy not only to fuel it's economy but to fuel their production
Does he does it because he's a good person? No he certainly isn't
It happens because capitalism needs it, it's a key part of it functioning, the well being of other humans is needed for it to exist
Communism does not need any of that
@wolfie @mewmew @it_wasnt_arson
@Elfie If you want to minimize human suffering, minimize human suffering rather than maximizing profit, because profit often tends to come with human suffering
Without profit there is nothing but misery
Aka communism, capitalism is good because a key element of it is that it needs people to not suffer in order to function as a system
No other model can achieve its scope while reducing misery at the same time
You're using an example than once again is not applicable to most of the capitalist nations
And better yet you contradict and misunderstand by denying that the people is the market, without the market the company doesn't exist, it cannot go against the people because that's just not how capitalism works, that's communism
And in the attempt to perpetuate your misbegotten ideology you completely bypass the ideas and basis of democracy and the legislative powers that are a key element of capitalist nations
In other words, you're full of shit commie
@wolfie @mewmew @jookia
I can't make sense of your one liners and anarchy radical bullshit
Go live in Chile you'll have a blast commie
@Elfie that and a whole lot of hard work by different people in different places over a period of decades, anti-racism, intersectional feminism, dismantling the gender binary, decolonization, etc, etc. I don't pretend to know the answers, but I think the people who do are out there and people will be able to solve their own problems better when freed from capitalist and state control.
So basically you're advocating for the destruction of society and then when the world is no more, solve every single problem of humanity, ok commie
Can you advocate for China any harder agent? You're making a wonderful job, your officer in command will proud
don't read the thread
The media talks about oil scarcity but it's complete bullshit
There is enough oil for all us to die and for our children's to have children assuming all alternative energy and knowledge suddenly disappears of the earth
What they mean is the availability of cheap, quality oil, most reserves are expensive and the process required for refining much more complex and therefore expensive than current reserves
@jookia @it_wasnt_arson @mewmew
@it_wasnt_arson @Elfie @mewmew @jookia You seem to be trying to expand a micro case to the macro and using it to illustrate… what exactly? Yes, bad things happen in any system. It isn’t like in communism no one ended up broke and starved. Millions of dead would dispute that for sure
They aren’t coerced. Did someone put a gun to their head? Tell them they have to work here and nowhere else or.. something? No?
I’m sorry that sometimes people can only get crappy jobs. That sucks. What do you propose though? Everyone gets a wonderful life by way of the magic bottomless pot of money and resources?
@mister_monster but for them to be able to be corrupt somebody has to be able to bribe them. The root problem here is that some people have vastly more wealth than others, and this allows them to subvert the government to their own ends.
Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with unbounded financial inequality. A person like Bezos literally has more say than millions of people combined.
@wolfie @mewmew @jookia @Elfie I propose that because the resources literally exist to provide for the livelihood of huge numbers of people who do completely useless jobs, that we instead... not have them do those jobs and provide for them anyway, for a start? Dissolve businesses into worker-owned co-ops, if anything?
@wolfie @mewmew @jookia @Elfie And a lot of crappy jobs are crappy because bosses make them crappy, not because they're inherently unpleasant. Serving people food isn't necessarily unpleasant, but it definitely becomes unpleasant when you work 34 hours a week on a schedule computer-optimized to keep you as busy as possible all the time and you're not allowed to stand up for yourself when people scream and throw things at you because you forgot to put onions on their burger in the rush.
起来Qǐlái!！ 起来Qǐlái!！ 起来Qǐlái!！
前进Qiánjìn!！ 前进Qiánjìn!！ 进Jìn!！
@wolfie @mewmew @jookia
@yogthos for them to be corrupt there has to be someone to bribe them? The people selling you out would otherwise be perfectly fine people without someone buying their influence?
We have a fundamental disagreement. I do not believe that the corrupt influence comes from money, I believe it comes from political power. I believe they would act out their corruption in other ways. Rather than take bribes they would just take by force. I believe history shows this to be true.
@Elfie Capitalism kills millions of people and is driving the world toward mass extinction and possibly the destruction of human civilization entirely
GLORY TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
DEATH TO THE HONK KONG TERRORISTS
Qilai! Buyuan zuo nuli de renmen,
Ba women de xuerou zhucheng women xin de changcheng.
Zhonghua Minzu dao liao zui weixian de shihou,
Meigeren beipo zhe fachu zuihou de housheng.
Qilai! Qilai! Qilai!
@Elfie Maybe you should actually read what people are saying rather than looking for excuses to dismiss them out of hand, but I know I'm not going to convince you of anything anyway
@it_wasnt_arson @mewmew @jookia @Elfie I’ll be frank, good luck with that. The thing is, nothing is free. It’s a null concept. Literally doesn’t exist. If anyone claims anything is truly free, it’s only because they don’t understand how things actually work. The man was right, ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, resources exist. In the ground, in warehouses, in lakes and wherever else they do. However, they’re going to do exactly nothing without people or machines to do something with them. Whether it’s time, energy, resources or money, work needs doing. So, either you can get everyone to work for nothing (or whatever… someone.. gives them) or.. nothing happens. That’s where these types of systems tend to break down. They try and fly in the face of physical reality, human nature, or both.
Let us pretend that we did as you suggest. We dissolve all the businesses and now the workers own them. Great. Thing is, most businesses don’t make things that are overly useful to themselves. They make them for trade. So, they can’t directly feed themselves with these things so I guess it’s back to trade. I still need to get some things done, so I’ll skip a bunch of steps and just say “Oh, hey look at that, we’re back to needing a functioning economy”.
There are reasons that communist countries eventually throw in the towel and switch to capitalism. There are reasons why the drivers of the future are not communist societies. There are reason that the future, as it were, was invented in the West. You want to lift millions out of poverty. Good. That’s a good thing. Know what has been proven to do that again and again? Capitalism. It isn’t always pretty. It isn’t perfect. It doesn’t work for everyone in every situation. It doesn’t even result in the same result for every person. But, history won’t be denied.
The idea of everyone being happy and having what they want and all the rest is an alluring and temping concept. It’d be nice if some day we get to the point technologically where we can get closer and closer to that. I don’t reasonably foresee it any time soon though. Even in the Federation, someone still has to scrub the plasma vents and funny enough, they never do answer why anyone would be a waiter. Yet, they still have them, don’t they?
@mister_monster the people selling you out wouldn't be in office in the first place otherwise. Who do you think got them in there in the first place exactly?
The rich are the ones funding their campaigns, playing ads for them in the media, and bribing them.
And you don't have to take my word on it, here's what actual research shows https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B/core-reader
@Elfie When you spend time with your friends and share a pizza, who profits?Profit is fueled by misery, by stealing the product of others' labor, by bending others' will to your own. Happiness is happiness, and it comes from having your needs met by people who care about you.
Happiness comes from the pizzeria making a better pizza to remain relevant and profitable
Happiness comes from my friend getting a promotion because he's good at what he does
Happiness comes from having the nation strive to offer better services so they remain popular and profitable
My mother can't produce energy to fuel civilization, dad can't feed an entire civilization and keep me and my friends healthy with ever increasing quality
You know what does? Capitalism, without happiness it cannot exist
@yogthos in a democracy someone gets elected. Without money for funding campaigns people still get elected. Are you telling me those elected people would never be corrupt because their campaigns weren't paid for by wealthy people? That the only reason we elect corrupt individuals is campaign funding? Corrupt people are attracted to positions of power, I don't believe for a second that eliminating the money rather than the position of power would eliminate corruption in government
They work at Walmart because they aren't resourceful enough to be better, society rewards the successful in order to ever strive towards a better, wealthier future
Is someone capable but sometimes unfairly treated? Yes, but the coin the system trades is talent not cruelness like your beloved CCP
And you know what? Most people is happy with what they do because they can choose without being coerced because capitalism thrives in freedom of choice, you're cherry picking and you can't even do it well
@mewmew @wolfie @jookia
@Elfie Funny that you mention Chile, where the US helped orchestrate a coup that replaced a democratically elected socialist president with a notoriously brutal fascist dictator who destroyed the economy and employed secret police to kidnap and murder political enemies and has a not insignificant online presence as part of a meme about murdering communists
Lol, absolutely wrong
Who's trying to currently overthrow the government, destroy the nation's asset and coin? The United States? Bahahwha
@Elfie Can you like... literally imagine a state of affairs other than America or China taking over the world
No, because I see things for how they are
I've got a minimal understanding of politics Which you lack
@mister_monster I'm telling you that it's much easier to have checks and balances in a society where some people don't own billions time more wealth than others. I'm not sure what part of that you're having trouble with to be honest.
Whatever other sources of corruption you might have, capitalism is clearly a major contributor to the problem. No solution is possible without addressing capitalism first.
i wasn't super awake when i wrote that
syndicalism at least has a chance of working. there's a clear path from "free" markets to a mostly worker-owned economy that can evolve further based on more explicit consensus than indirect market "voting". i think working towards more democratic economic entities is a good thing. corporations are not nice beings and i'd rather we go with something else (hopefully more empathic/friendly/whatever) that's still compatible with the extant economic system.
@yogthos @wolfie @mewmew
As opposed to all the communist countries where poor people are eating dirt while oligarchy is living in golden palaces with own zoo? Dude, I totally agree that this Amazon situation is wrong, but first of all this is not capitalism, this is bribery, and second, you always ruin even your good posts by going totally nuts and drawing unfounded conclusions, putting everything that's bad in the world on one pile and then labeling it "capitalism". That's not how it works.
@hushroom I'm still thinking about this. I'm still blown away by how it's possible to *not get it* this hard.
Seeing how I actually lived in USSR myself, I'll tell you that it was far more equal than any capitalist country I know. Everybody had access to things like healthcare, housing, education, and public transit.
Meanwhile, people like Gates and Bezos didn't exist, and all the leaders of USSR came from regular people many were born in villages. This was possible because USSR provided basic services to all citizens.
@chebra @wolfie @mewmew and here's an actual comparison of quality of like for you https://twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1136693839526223872
@yogthos I'm having no trouble understanding, I just think you're wrong. And I do not believe that eliminating capitalism would better the problem at all. I believe history shows that. The source of the problem is the position of power, without capitalism you'd have the powerful acting on their own behalf rather than as mercenaries on behalf of others. Eliminating the position of power eliminates the problem entirely, that's better than any theoretical major contributor.
@mister_monster well then you're just ignorant of history https://twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1136693839526223872
Flexing much? I'm from a post-communist country and I know people who got killed or their relatives killed by the communist regime just for reading a "wrong book", singing a "wrong song" or listening to a "wrong radio". Also, I'm now living in Vietnam, where poor people are eating dirt and oligarchy is living in golden palaces
This whole bad things that happen under communism are rooted in communism, while same things happening under capitalism are anything but is a really sad argument.
And I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that when a country has an oligarchy it's not actually communist. I know it's a wild concept that you can just declare something without doing it.
@yogthos OK, well I'd say that there's no way you have any idea what I know and understand from just this back and forth, I'm not going to learn much history from a twitter thread and if your response to a disagreement is that I am somehow ignorant I'd say you haven't spent a whole lot of effort learning what those that disagree with you believe or why they believe it.
@mister_monster you can read the actual study linked in the twitter thread, since it's paywalled I linked to the thread that gives the highlights
"Poor good communism, never got the chance, it's the CIA fault again!"
I heard that before. You should really start working for KGB, you seem to have a very good insight into what other secret services are doing.
So if the NATO stopped the good communism, why did they let exist the bad communism in North Korea, Cuba, Russia, China... ? Is it because the NATO is so bad they only let the bad examples exist to prove their point?
@chebra @wolfie @mewmew you just asked where non-totalitarian communism wen to and I answered, now you're surprised that countries CIA didn't manage to destroy are militant. That's the level of "logic" we're dealing with here?
And while we're at it, why don't we talk about all the people NATO killed and enslaved in the past few decades. Since you're advocating for capitalism here, how do you reconcile that?
Exactly, we are talking about communism vs capitalism in the context of Amazon, why bring NATO or any other army into it? It simply has no relevance. If you want to compare deaths, let's compare communist deaths vs capitalistic deaths (which I'm sure you will conflate with all the deaths, then label them with "capitalism" because that's what we have now)
@chebra because NATO is what allows multinationals to exploit countries all over the world.
Let's look at Bolivia as a recent example. US overthrew the government when they wanted to nationalize lithium. Now their new puppet government will give lithium away to multinational corps instead. That's how imperialism works.
The people of Latin America, South Asia, and Middle East are all victims of capitalist imperialism.
@chebra claiming that this has no relevance to Amazon is either height of intellectual dishonesty or nativity. You tell me which.
@yogthos Do you think it will change my mind?
Your supposition, "any learned person would agree with me, therefore of they disagree they must be ignorant" is a common belief. You can probably guess that I feel the same way about what I believe. Calling someone ignorant accomplishes nothing, other than protecting oneself from having to try to understand the other point of view. That's why I don't do it.
There's nothing for me to learn from that thread. Your agitation is showing.
@mister_monster honestly I don't care, you have access to the same information I do, and if you choose to believe what you believe there's likely nothing I can say to change your mind anyways
Look, how about this, let's leave the history events, because we cannot change them now and we would be just arguing about wrong implementations. Let's talk about the ideas itself. Without giving them names. I'll kick off by saying that I think it's better to "treat people equally" as opposed to "making people equal". Simply because "being equal" can be unfair in the case when the effort invested wasn't equal.
@chebra I think treating people equally has to start with democratic distribution of resources and allocation of work.
Work under capitalism is allocated based on the whims of people who own the capital. I think it would be far better to allocate work based on the needs of the society at large.
I also don't think that any real equality is possible when some people own billions of times more wealth than others.
And when basic needs aren't provided unconditionally, work is just wage slavery.
@chebra no, I'm saying that NATO is a tool of oppression that the West uses to subjugate third world countries so that companies like Amazon are able t exploit them. Are you seriously having trouble grasping how this works?
@hushroom I'm sorry, that was mean. I was in a contrarian mood, and I think I'd be able to have a better conversation some other time
Hahahahahhahahahahaha… sorry, earlier I was accused of being too deep in the propaganda but this is just rich. Then do explain the politburo and such. Do explain why, as I believe I said to you earlier, Yeltsin had his faith in communism destroyed by a bloody common supermarket. But yeah, it was great.
"Has to start" but how do you achieve the "democratic" (did you mean equal?) distribution of resources? That's simply an impossible wish.
And yes, in capitalism, people can decide for themselves what they do with their own property, if they give it to someone in exchange for their services or not. That's a good thing.
@yogthos @mewmew @chebra No, it doesn’t. We’re not talking about piles of gold in a big McDuckian vault here. We’re talking the more nebulous concept of ‘wealth’ in an economy with a fiat currency. A Bezos or Gates having X does not make anyone else more poor. That’s fundamentally not how this works.
I think we’re likely done here to be honest
I like how this thread died immediately, while the other threads with personal insults discussing things that did or didn't happen in past generations are still growing. Seems you are more interested in discussing past events than the ideas that may drive our future - which we can actually do something about.
@chebra sorry missed it, and don't see what specifically is impossible. USSR allocated resources far more democratically for example. However, that was just state run capitalism.
Personally, I think that companies should be replaced with worker owned cooperatives. This way the workers decide what they work on, how they work, and share profits equally.
And no, people can't decide anything for themselves under capitalism when the choice is to work or starve on the street.
@chebra unless basic services such as food, shelter, healthcare, and education are provided for all unconditionally you just have wage slavery that's no different from feudalism.
A choice to work or starve on the street is fundamentally a false choice.
@chebra meanwhile the only thing capitalism is driving is the extinction of complex life on this planet, humanity included
@chebra I also love how you actually thought that you constructed some unassailable argument here that I simply couldn't come up with a response to as opposed to me simply missing your reply 😂
Lol, far more democratically? Again, we are talking about historic events, but USSR extracted resources from the soviet countries, I know, we were one of them.
Honestly, if companies were replaced by worker owned cooperatives I wouldn't be mad at all. The problem is that it has been tried before and it almost always ends up in a variant of the tragedy of the commons. And since that is the reality, I prefer to have a company with a director with shareholders and employees, then I can decide for myself if I want to become the shareholder.
"Work or starve" is the reality of the life. We only work if we want to have money. There are plenty of other ways to obtain money (start a company, hire workers) and also to live without money (go to a country where your savings will cover all the expenses), but only if you have the basic rights of free movement and the legal right to start a company, which you do in capitalism, but don't under communism.
@chebra the quality of life across USSR was far more even than it is in US right now. Meanwhile, even the poor people in US are far better off than people in slaving away in third world countries to support their lifestyles.
@chebra once again you're just saying things like they're facts when they're demonstrably false. There are plenty of successful coops out there, Mondragon being a great example
Furthermore, worker co-ops are more productive, last longer, and get thru recessions better than capitalist, top-down firms https://www.shareable.net/3-surprising-facts-that-will-change-the-way-you-think-about-worker-cooperatives-qa-with-virginie-perotin/
Facts are not on your side here I'm afraid.
>"Work or starve" is the reality of the life.
It's only reality of life for people who are born poor because capitalism is a birth lottery. If you're born rich then you don't have to work a day in your life, and you live off the labor of those you exploit. If you're born poor then working to subsidize the lifestyle of those born luckier than you is the reality of life.
This is what you're ultimately advocating for.
You are falling for the survival bias. Try comparing the number of coops that succeeded and the number of coops that failed.
@chebra and unless you can demonstrate the coops fail statistically more frequently you don't actually have any point here, and we can move on
Which we cannot, same as you cannot statistically demonstrate that they fail less frequently, because nobody tracks the data. Not because it's false. I'm just pointing out that saying that companies fail doesn't invalidate my point that tragedy of commons exists.
@chebra I actually linked you a reference discussing a study that shows that coops survive 29 percent longer, they’re more productive, and they weather recessions better. Here it is again since you conveniently ignored it
Communism is a much stronger birth lottery. But with rights that allow you to study, become proficient and break the chain of your poor ancestors, you can actually make it. Under communism if your father once offended a government official your whole family is either dead or denied from every school, every job, punished for just appearing on the streets. Again, I know people who suffered such fate.
@chebra quite the opposite I'm afraid, all soviet leaders rose from regular people, many, like Khrushchev, were born on farms. The reason is due to them having actual equal opportunity.
Also rather hilarious you're making this argument in face of Chelsea Manning being in solitary confinement while Snowden exiled in Russia.
What does Manning and Snowden have to do with any of this? Again, you are pulling unrelated events into a discussion about ideas.
The audacity of bringing up Manning and Snowden while every single opposition candidate against Putin got jailed or assassinated! Seriously? How about sending spies with Novichok to kill people in other countries?
@chebra seeing how you'd be working in a cooperative that you own I don't follow where the problem lies
@chebra you're claiming that dissidents are prosecuted under communism more harshly than under capitalism. I'm noting two people famous for being prosecuted for being dissidents in a capitalist regime.
You might want to look up what the word related means if you're going to keep using it.
On the other hand, Putin is completely unrelated since Russia is a capitalist oligarchy right now. You seriously didn't know that Russia isn't communist?! 😂
One thing is a dissident, another thing is an alternative opinion about how the country should be ran. Again, I think we should have multiple choices and let the voters pick what they prefer, not killing everybody who differs from the current leader. And while I'm fully siding with Snowden, his case is very different from Alexey Navalny and Boris Nemtsov. Snowden should be the exception from the rule that publishing secret materials is forbidden. But Nemtsov? Now that's totalitarianism
@chebra I don't think democracy is possible in a country where some people have vastly more wealth than others.
The rich fund campaigns, own the news, and create lobby groups. US is a perfect example of a country that's a democracy on paper, but an oligarchy in practice.
Once again, are you still trying to claim that Russia is communist right now?
Seems to me like you're unable to argue in good faith here. Have a good day.
Same way democracy cannot exist in a country without plurality of opinions.
Rich may fund campaigns all they want, but I'm free to not listen to them. Sure, many other people will still fall for it, but that's one of the downsides of democracy. As long as I'm allowed to chose, I'm willing to live with this downside. If I ever want to do something about it, I may start educating them. Under communism I wouldn't be allowed to.
Our topic is communism vs capitalism, not US vs Russia.
@chebra we ban plenty of opinions in every society, for example racism is pretty universally considered unacceptable. I think that having a birth lottery to decide who works and who doesn't is equally unacceptable.
Once again, a capitalist democracy is democratic on paper only https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
The only thing you can't choose under communism is to exploit others for personal benefit, and I see that as a positive.
And without capital you only get to choose your master under capitalism.
@chebra and if the topic is capitalism vs communism, then I don't know why you keep judging communism on past mistakes as opposed to the way it's supposed to work in its ideal. Any problem you can point to that happened under communism I can point to happening under capitalism.
We ban practicing racism, not talking about it. It's just proven to be wrong. That's a big difference from shooting opposition candidates on the streets.
You are just quoting examples of US democracy, which you yourself said. and I agree, is not very good. Doesn't change anything about capitalism vs communism.
There are plenty things you are forbidden to do under communism, especially the USSR version of it. Such as listening to Simon and Garfunkel.
You keep judging capitalism on past mistakes of US specifically. Not even once have you shown any problem with the capitalist ideology in it's ideal form, you always just show an example of a past event. While I've shown you examples of unfair balance (forcefully equalizing unequal
people) under ideal communism.
> I think that having a birth lottery to decide who works and who doesn't is equally unacceptable.
I wholeheartedly agree! Nothing is stopping you from learning from available free resources, then getting accepted in a school of your choice, then demonstrating skills during your job interview, accumulating savings, starting your own company etc etc.. While under communism, you'd simply be denied from all schools no matter how good you are if your father was against the regime.
@Mikoto @mewmew @Elfie @it_wasnt_arson @wolfie The education system is a core part of how we gain knowledge and ideas, and learn how to synthesize new ideas. Just as the education system teaches you that F=ma, the education system teaches you about climate change. You can’t say that what’s taught has no effect. A great part of it may be irrelevant or useless, but we tend to keep even irrelevant and useless knowledge.
don't read the thread
@quaylessed Here's the thing:
None of this actually fucking matters for the story. So it was all cut out. There was a fifteen second pair of lines where the nerd guy explained about Unobtainium. They got cut. Over a century of worldbuilding about Earth may as well have never been there. They created all, all, all this supporting material to make their weird fantasy Pocahontas-in-the-sky story make sense. Every single nagging question you could possibly have about anything in
don't read the thread
@quaylessed the setting has been answered, for better or worse, in someone's pile of notes and a shitty cash-in lore dump book. All of that supporting material was neatly and completely cut out to focus on eye candy and plot.
Of course, the plot is almost impressively forgettable, entirely composed of cribbed notes bleached of all character and painted blue. Eye candy never ages well. So the one genuinely interesting part of the effort put into the movie, which they're sti
don't read the thread
@quaylessed ll desperately trying to market, was never even set up to be marketed in the first place. It's great in the short term - Deep lore is life for diehard fans, but doesn't bring people to the box office - but now the novelty has run out, and there's nothing to replace it. So here we have new novelty, this time throwing half the worldbuilding out the window to try to write a literal theme park into a narrative where it really, really doesn't belong. Flimsy, creepy, s
don't read the thread
@quaylessed ometimes outright offensive excuses for fucking up the most basic and originally shitty metaphor for racist colonialism abound. Hooray.
I guess it's just one more example of how even the most shallow and milquetoast anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, or anti-corporate themes in media cannot survive contact with any major media company. Like all the boring, declawed adaptations of dystopian novels weren't enough.
@chebra if you have to work for a living you're automatically disadvantaged. You have to spend 40 hours a week doing work just to live. Then you have to spend time and energy on top of that to use these free resources, and improve your skills or whatever. Meanwhile, a person born rich can just do whatever they like.
On top of that, you don't get the same connections as a rich person, and luck ends up being the dominant factor. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-in-life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/
@chebra and of course nobody is proposing a form of communism that would deny people anything. You're just using a straw man argument here.
@chebra no, I'm judging it on its long history starting with Victorian times. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme that requires a large pool of poor people to support the lifestyle of a few rich people. This problem is inherent in the system.
Meanwhile, you've just been referencing what USSR did and claiming that problems of USSR are inherent in communism.
No forced equalizing is required for communism to function. You just make things up and state them as facts.
Am I though? You say capitalism is bad because Amazon did something wrong, yet it's a strawman if I point out that every single communist regime we ever saw in this world ended up in people getting denied schools and jobs based on whether they were loyal to communism or not.
@chebra no, I say capitalism is bad because it's a system that's designed to accumulate capital in the hands of the few. This leads to inequality that's at odds with democracy because some people end up with vastly more resources than others.
Amazon is just a symptom of the problem that exists in every single capitalist society.
@chebra and even if we buy your argument, I would much rather live in a society that denies things to people who are actively working against it, as opposed to one denying things based on whether somebody was born rich or not.
So you'd rather live in a society where anyone who has a different opinion than a committee at the top of the society will be considered as "working against society" and thereby denied access to basic resources. I mean... you just described the thing I was most worried about. Only now you admitted that it's ingrained in the idea of communism itself, not just a wrong implementation.
Capitalism doesn't deny things to people who were not born rich - proof: me.
@chebra again this is a straw man argument because literally nobody is advocating for this here.
I've never suggested or admitted that this is an ingrained idea in communism. You just keep repeating it like a mantra.
However, if I absolutely had to choose then yes I would prefer that to capitalism.
And what exactly are you a proof of do you think?
All right, I give up, tell me what communism is then. Because I see such committee and dissidents getting denied access in every existing regime that calls themselves "communist". If communism as an ideology doesn't lead to such committee, then in practice it very much does, but go ahead and tell me what the real communism does about people who just want to work more, thereby earn more, and have the freedom to decide what to do with their own property.
@chebra I already told you, it's about ensuring that the resources and work are allocated in a way that benefits majority of people in society. It's about providing basic needs for everyone unconditionally. And it's about having worker ownership of businesses.
What you're advocating is for freedom to exploit other people for your personal benefit. And I disagree that such a freedom is desirable.
@chebra your whole argument is basically that as long as you're personally happy it's ok for other people to suffer to support your lifestyle.
Oh come on, why are you accusing me of something like that? That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. I just want to work above average, and expect to get above average reward. How is that exploiting anyone? Giving me average reward for my above average effort would be exploitation.
I still don't understand how do you want to "ensure that resources are allocated in a way that benefits majority" - are you suggesting to exploit some minority to take their resources and give it to the majority?
@chebra you said yourself repeatedly that you prefer capitalism, and that's a birth lottery. So, you actively advocate for a lottery system to decide who works and who doesn't.
This whole work above average argument doesn't hold water in practice. Plenty of poor people work much harder than you, and they don't become rich. Truck drivers are a great example of this.
@chebra I explained multiple times, by having worker ownership of businesses. What part of that are you struggling with?
I prefer capitalism exactly because it ISN'T a birth lottery. And you still didn't give me any reason to believe otherwise.
And those poor people who work hard are obviously working on a wrong thing. It doesn't matter how many resources you have if you don't use them wisely: https://external-preview.redd.it/_rzNeEc2mkw5wUQ46HLA4G7_OX8Zdis4g32W8SPLYJM.jpg?s=455a513e0aa6a743724486d53da3cf46bf45203e This is why many poor people (not all) are poor. Truck drivers included, automated trucks are almost here, so any truck driver not seeking another skill is simply foolish.
@chebra ok gotcha, you prefer capitalism because you don't understand how capitalism works.
Have a good day.
I'll show you the problem with forced worker ownership - say I start a small business first by myself. I'm diligent, responsible, careful, therefore my business grows and soon I need some helping hands. If I have to promise a share of my company to any unskilled worker, what happens if that worker turns out to be lazy and I need to fire him? Would you exploit me by letting him keep the share of my company, or would you confiscate his share?
@chebra I love how you're arguing about this like it's some hypothetical scenario as if cooperatives didn't already exist.
You making absurd claims that are demonstrably false has been the theme for this whole thread.
In capitalism you simply pay the worker immediately the appropriate amount his services were worth on that day until the day you don't need their services. That is fair.
@chebra there's nothing fair about that because the relationship between the worker and capital owner is inherently asymmetric.
In any case, it's pretty clear that there's no point continuing this argument.
We're not going to change each others minds here. And it's clear that our views are fundamentally incompatible.
Have a good one.
@chebra I did answer your question, take a look at how cooperatives actually work. This is not a hypothetical.
How is that asymmetric? The worker can tell me he doesn't want to provide his services at such price any more. He can find another place to sell his services, I can find another person providing those services. Fair, fair.
How should I (or anyone else) believe communism is the better system if you don't provide answers to these very obvious dilemmas? I think you yourself don't know how to solve them.
@chebra the worker is not in position of power because they need a job to live.
The quality of working conditions only needs to be better than not having work. When the society doesn't provide basic needs, the working conditions have to be just a bit better than starving.
How should I (or anyone else) take your seriously when you choose not to understand basic things like this?
@chebra also some light reading for you http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/19.htm
They need "a" job. And only if they are not willing to find another non-job way to live (like growing their own food). Also, the employer needs workers, otherwise they can close the business as they will not be able to run it. The relationship is balanced both ways which is apparent when you look at some high skilled jobs.Companies are celebrating if they get at least one interviewee per month.But I guess you never saw this end of the spectrum because you only talk about unskilled jobs
@chebra I'm just curious, do you think you're making new and novel arguments here that nobody thought of before?
Do you really think that I haven't thought about this until now, and you're going to surprise me with some insight that I haven't yet considered?
No, I'm just trying to get the answers that no commie wants to give. You prefer to avoid the question, refer me to some dubious websites, rather than simply writing what you claim to know.
@chebra again, you completely ignored my point here.
People offering jobs have no incentive to provide good working conditions. All the person looking for a job has a "choice" of is one of the master they will serve.
The business owner gets to accumulate capital by exploiting the labor of the workers. Meanwhile, the workers only make enough money to keep them going. That's why it's called wage slavery. This is precisely how capitalism works in practice.
@chebra I've given you anwsers, and I've even provided you with research that supports them.
You just ignore what I say and continue to repeat nonsense.
Again, that's simply untrue. It's only the case for workers who refused to increase their skills to match their peers, sure, those will have hard time finding a comfortable job, and that is fair.
People who invest in their skills to actually provide services that are valuable to someone have no problems dictating their own conditions to their bosses.
@chebra and we're back to birth lottery. People born rich don't have to do any of this, while people born poor have to work to support the rich, and then have to improve their skills and hope to become rich themselves.
And at best a poor person becomes a business over propagating the cycle of exploitation. It's like justifying slavery by saying that a slaves sometimes escape and get their own slaves. So, there's really no problem. 🤦♂️
WTF dude you are really fabricating your conclusions in incredible ways. When did I say rich people don't need to have skills? I mean if their parents were rich they must have had skills and I don't think any communist parent would refuse to support their own child. But without skills their wealth will be short lived.
The poor don't have to support the rich, what kind of nonsense is that? It's very simple, get something somebody else wants, they will exchange it for what you want.
@chebra I said that rich people don't have to have skills. Statistically you become rich by being born rich. Most people today are rich because their parents were rich. This is literally how generational wealth works.
The poor have to support the rich because they need to sell their labor to live. They sell their labor to people who own capital, who are already rich.
Have to be pretty dim not to be able to grasp this. The poor literally subsidize the lifestyle of the rich.
@chebra it's absolutely hilarious that you keep accusing me of fabricating things while you've pulled every single argument you've made out of your ass.
You just state absurdity as fact. You've never provided any single reference to back it up, and you ignore the references to actual research that I've provided.
All in all you're a pretty bad troll.
Bahahwha you have no idea what you're talking again
You don't even bother to receive on site information by people yet claim to be all knowing
Tbh if you truly lived in the USSR and learned NOTHING of the very place you inhabited, then I think we're operating at high levels of retardation, comrade
@Mikoto @mewmew @yogthos @wolfie
Yes, comparing capitalism (economic system) with communism (political system) is not entirely correct, but I cannot imagine a fair setup of communism even on a small scale. The dilemmas with disowning property and rewarding inversely proportional to peoples effort is still in the ideology and I don't find it fair. Communism lets lazy people ride free on the shoulders of ambitious people.Favors lazines