Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?

[Liberty]

Watch this ingenious video and see why Capitalism doesn't exploit workers.


youtube.com/watch?v=4Ttbj6LAu0A

[Conscript]

Watch this ingenious video and see why Capitalism doesn't exploit workers.


youtube.com/watch?v=4Ttbj6LAu0A

Just a few of the arguments presented:

'There's no consensus on what exploitation means, here's ours: [insert vague definition completely unrelated to the labor theory of value and omits all mention of it], now watch us beat down this strawman'

'Many of today's scholars reject the LTV'

'Of course capitalists want to exploit the worker, but competition in the labor market forces capitalists to give workers most of the value of their labor' (what a self-defeating argument)

'Even if it were exploitive, increasing regulation wouldn't prevent it' (genius if you were talking to liberals, not marxists)

'Capitalism protects workers' interests, and by that we mean the interests of wage-labor which can't live without us, and those are the only working class interests, because we aren't talking to marxists'

I can already tell this is a terrible video. This does libertarians no justice.

[l'Enfermé]

Meh, not very convincing. I've seen much more convincing apologists for capitalism.

[Positivist]

Capitalists have the cutest little arguments.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Meh, not very convincing. I've seen much more convincing apologists for capitalism.

Yes, I agree completely.

[l'Enfermé]

'Of course capitalists want to exploit the worker, but competition in the labor market forces capitalists to give workers most of the value of their labor' (what a self-defeating argument)


How can someone say that with a straight face? Hmm...capitalists want to exploit workers, BUT, because there are other capitalist(that want to exploit workers too), they can't. I would have guessed that all the capitalists exploiters would agree to exploit all their workers at relatively the same level so the workers would have nowhere else to go, but it seems I'm wrong...:crying:

[#FF0000]

How can someone say that with a straight face? Hmm...capitalists want to exploit workers, BUT, because there are other capitalist(that want to exploit workers too), they can't. I would have guessed that all the capitalists exploiters would agree to exploit all their workers at relatively the same level so the workers would have nowhere else to go, but it seems I'm wrong...:crying:

What's so dumbfounding about this is that it's completely divorced from reality. I know very, very, very few people who aren't making minimum wage, or who are only making more than that through temp labor.

And has anyone else noticed how people arguing from these perspectives rely so heavily on abstracts and hypotheticals instead of pointing to real world examples? The "auction" abstract in this video -- with capitalists paying workers more because if they don't, someone else will -- is clearly nonsense to anyone who's spent a minute in the real working world, where wages are plummeting, benefits are being slashed (if they exist at all) and job security is a fairy tale.

But I guess the actual real-world example they use sort of explains the reliance of hypotheticals, since they literally used payday loans as an example of mutually beneficial exchange.

[Revolution starts with U]

"competitive competition forces capitalists to pay workers close to what they produce..."

Except for that whole 400x more in personal income your average bigwig makes...

Like... how did this guy get a phd? (Answer that, and you might just understand capitalism better)



The idea that competition over wages could work like an auction would only be true were there more jobs than people, or a minimum subsistence income such as to allow workers to be able to withhold their labor from the market.

If I remember correctly this is what happened after the Plagues in Europe and early N American colonization, both witnessing drastic rises in living standards.

What usually happens tho is far different. There are far fewer jobs than people and vastly different companies will have the same wage for all entry level workers. As #F said, 99% of the people I know make between min wage and $10. That's not really a significant difference.

Now you tell me how the CEO makes $4000/hr.



How does the poor worker have the opportunity to say no? Have you ever been a poor worker? Have you ever had the threat of every single one of your bills being late and you're not sure you have enough to buy food even for a week?

I mean, we could all go live in tent cities. If that's what you really want. But I don't think you're going to like what you see when you get a bunch of people fighting over scraps in confined spaces...




Ok so we have wealthy and powerful people. Then we get rid of government but leave the wealth and power.

How do we stop wealth and power from using military force if those same people still hold dominance over the product of society?
Are you expecting working people to join your revolution in exchange for the same income they have now? I implore you to learn your history and see the the people who fight these revolutions, coups, and civil wars do so for an economic gain. Nobody revolts to keep shit the way it is :rolleyes:

You're basically telling people "yo buddy, you make as much as you deserve, in fact too much. We want you to revolt against your government so that we can take your food stamps away, lower the minimum wage, and privatize all these public transit systems. Oh yeah, and a lot of us think segregation is a-ok as long as it's "voluntary" so...
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the demographics of modern capitalism. If you posit it you're either a liar, or you've lived a pretty swag life style in the suburbs...



His last question is spot on tho: if we want to decrease the exploitation of workers, is giving the state more power the way to do it?

No. The way to do it is to rise up in mass rejection of the current order and overwrite the domination of capital.

[l'Enfermé]

What's so dumbfounding about this is that it's completely divorced from reality. I know very, very, very few people who aren't making minimum wage, or who are only making more than that through temp labor.

And has anyone else noticed how people arguing from these perspectives rely so heavily on abstracts and hypotheticals instead of pointing to real world examples? The "auction" abstract in this video -- with capitalists paying workers more because if they don't, someone else will -- is clearly nonsense to anyone who's spent a minute in the real working world, where wages are plummeting, benefits are being slashed (if they exist at all) and job security is a fairy tale.

But I guess the actual real-world example they use sort of explains the reliance of hypotheticals, since they literally used payday loans as an example of mutually beneficial exchange.
B-b-but you see, we don't have a totally free market right now, man, if we did, everything would be fucking perfect!!!111!! BIG GOVERNMENT! BAD! GUNS! GOOD!

[ZvP]

These Learn Liberty videos are designed as an apparatus to get libertarian propaganda to kids. The organization who makes them is headed by Charles Koch (of Koch Brothers fame), one of the biggest scumbag capitalists in America. I don't say he's a scumbag simply because of his wealth, but also because he's leading the post-Citizens-United charge in buying elections for Republicans and funding conservative think tanks to brainwash pro-capitalist (and more specifically, pro-business) ideas into people.

[Kotze]

MYTH: Some people say that slavery "exploits" niggers.
-FACT: 9 out of 10 niggers prefer being slave to being dead.

Get more information at learn2nigger dot org.

But what does all that have to with me? I just turned 40 and nobody has ever called me a nigger in my whole life. I'm afraid this offer is not for people like me :/
-FALSE. True freedom means everybody can be a nigger. If you study Ayn Rand with passion, take part in protests to get government out of your Medicare, and sign up for the Ron Paul newsletter right now, you might even become the biggest nigger of all time!

[JPSartre12]

Watch this ingenious video and see why Capitalism doesn't exploit workers.


Lol capitalism has no defense.

[rylasasin]

obvious advertiser idiotic right wing troll is obvious.

[Rafiq]

I find it exceptionally amusing, how these Libertarian scum can only ever make moralist arguments in regards to capitalism. If you were to go on youtube now, and were to search up "LearnLiberty", their latest video is how "IN FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, THERE WOULD BE LESS THIEVES! BUSINESS OWNERS COULD ROOT OUT THIEVES A LOT EASIER!". Watch it.

You know, perhaps maybe, without cheap moralism, which ironically always relies on bourgeois pressuposions to begin with (THIS IS BETTER FOR LIBERTY! IT IS IMMORAL FOR A STATE TO DO X), maybe Marxist theoreticians would actually take you Free Market scum seriously. Maybe, if you based your arguments in an actual analyzation of the capitalist mode of production, and in mathematics (Ludwig Von Mises, and the Austrian school as a whole completely rejects the use of mathematics as a means of understanding the social relations between different material forces in the capitalist mode of production, i.e. The use of mathematics to not only understand the process that is capital accumulation, but to make predictions based off of this analyzation using the same mathematic models you used to analyze them in the first place (i.e. The ways in which Marxists always calculate impending crises, which are, always correct). The Free Marketers reject this, for reasons unknown? (!) Maybe, just maybe, it's because their abstract Utopian garbage can't be actualized or represented, utilizing the scientific method as their basis. I mean, not only is Free Market Capitalism divorced from the Scientific method, it literally cannot even exist theoretically! That's pretty fucking interesting, if you ask me. Why, oh why has the Left not taken this opportunity to denounce Free Marketers, not as just simply "foolish", but Utopian. That is the only way we can classify a school of thought which rejects the most rudimentary of set principals in analyzing the capitalist mode of production. Marx's analyzation of capitalism even relied on classical liberal pressuposions, set forth by Adam Smith, Ricardo, etc. and turned their own models against them.

Libertarians always utilize subjective nonsense, i.e. They tell us what is moral, and what is immoral, but they don't tell us what is possible, i.e. They don't divulge as to how the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production would be solved, they just, like the Zeitgeist movement, utilize moralist arguments which are exclusive to the petty bourgeois class.

[Rafiq]

Just a few of the arguments presented:

'There's no consensus on what exploitation means, here's ours: [insert vague definition completely unrelated to the labor theory of value and omits all mention of it], now watch us beat down this strawman'

Funny, Marx's definition of exploitation is completely amoral, it's strictly scientific. When Marx talks about exploitation, he's not asking anyone to draw to the conclusion "Oh my, that's immoral!", he's using the term exploitation in a very strict and scientific sense. This simply played into his theory of value, which didn't exist to strengthen socialist ideology, but to form a very objective and strict critique of the capitalist mode of production, rooting out it's systemic contradictions.


'Many of today's scholars reject the LTV'


Nobody seemed to have a problem with it when it was put forward by Adam Smith. Besides, there exists no such thing as the Labor Theory of Value, but of the Theory of Value, of which the LTV is merely a component of.


'Of course capitalists want to exploit the worker, but competition in the labor market forces capitalists to give workers most of the value of their labor' (what a self-defeating argument)


There isn't any competition in the Labor market, in this regards. Capitalists usually don't beg workers to work for them, rather, it's most usually the opposite. And it is a self defeating argument, in that any idiot can understand that capitalists don't worry themselves over what workers they must hire, in comparison with competition with other capitalists! This would require them to maximize profit, but minimize the cost of production, which most definitely includes the lowering of wages, in turn, which most definitely proceeds to include products being sold below their actual Value, creating a falling rate of profit. It is inevitable a capitalist would attempt to minimize the cost of production, while at the same time producing more.


'Even if it were exploitive, increasing regulation wouldn't prevent it' (genius if you were talking to liberals, not marxists)


Regulation would prolong it, though (which is why the Bourgeois class goes out of their way, ruthlessly, to utilize the state to tax themselves and regulate the market, see: bank bailouts).

But you're right, it wouldn't prevent or solve the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production, though, that tells me fuck all why hundreds of millions of proletarians should fight for an even worse version of this, which is destroyed much quicker and much more chaotically (Free Markets).


'Capitalism protects workers' interests, and by that we mean the interests of wage-labor which can't live without us, and those are the only working class interests, because we aren't talking to marxists'


Is that why class struggle was always inevitable, before Marx could even scratch his balls for the first time? And what are the worker's "interests"? Are you for filling their interests when they're ruthlessly sacrificed when competing with your enemies? When they're wages are lowered? When they're social benefits are revoked? When they're tossed out into the battlefield to exemplify your foreign interests?

Just a shitty moralist argument.


I can already tell this is a terrible video. This does libertarians no justice.


It is a terirble video. Pay no attention, as it was financed by the upper crust of the Petite Bourgeoisie. The Petite Bourgeoisie in developed countries are the most reactionary class in existence, really.

[Raúl Duke]

I find it exceptionally amusing, how these Libertarian scum can only ever make moralist arguments in regards to capitalism. If you were to go on youtube now, and were to search up "LearnLiberty", their latest video is how "IN FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, THERE WOULD BE LESS THIEVES! BUSINESS OWNERS COULD ROOT OUT THIEVES A LOT EASIER!". Watch it.

You know, perhaps maybe, without cheap moralism, which ironically always relies on bourgeois pressuposions to begin with (THIS IS BETTER FOR LIBERTY! IT IS IMMORAL FOR A STATE TO DO X), maybe Marxist theoreticians would actually take you Free Market scum seriously. Maybe, if you based your arguments in an actual analyzation of the capitalist mode of production, and in mathematics (Ludwig Von Mises, and the Austrian school as a whole completely rejects the use of mathematics as a means of understanding the social relations between different material forces in the capitalist mode of production, i.e. The use of mathematics to not only understand the process that is capital accumulation, but to make predictions based off of this analyzation using the same mathematic models you used to analyze them in the first place (i.e. The ways in which Marxists always calculate impending crises, which are, always correct). The Free Marketers reject this, for reasons unknown? (!) Maybe, just maybe, it's because their abstract Utopian garbage can't be actualized or represented, utilizing the scientific method as their basis. I mean, not only is Free Market Capitalism divorced from the Scientific method, it literally cannot even exist theoretically! That's pretty fucking interesting, if you ask me. Why, oh why has the Left not taken this opportunity to denounce Free Marketers, not as just simply "foolish", but Utopian. That is the only way we can classify a school of thought which rejects the most rudimentary of set principals in analyzing the capitalist mode of production. Marx's analyzation of capitalism even relied on classical liberal pressuposions, set forth by Adam Smith, Ricardo, etc. and turned their own models against them.

Libertarians always utilize subjective nonsense, i.e. They tell us what is moral, and what is immoral, but they don't tell us what is possible, i.e. They don't divulge as to how the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production would be solved, they just, like the Zeitgeist movement, utilize moralist arguments which are exclusive to the petty bourgeois class.

I always find it amusing as well and in a way self-defeating.

If only they would straight-up say "fuck yes we want to exploit the lower classes; fuck'em we're the elite!1!11!!" unabashedly rather then hiding in their abstract fantasy of a utopian free-market that will most likely never exist (i.e. corporations, etc do benefit from some state-related shit like subsidies and bailouts plus they can always blame the state for the problems of the world through politician-puppets like the Republicans so to deflect blame from themselves); any perceptive person who has lived in real-life, particularly familiar with wage labor, knows that most of what free-marketeers and libertarians say is rubbish.

But I think part of their discourse comes in part that it's perhaps intended to mislead people to buy into the libertarian trap and support shit they would perhaps not benefit from ("false consciousness" or whatever Gramsci called it, all that jazz).

[Liberty]

It is funny how all of you need to make obscure arguments to defeat this.

[Per Levy]

It is funny how all of you need to make obscure arguments to defeat this.

its funny how you dont come up with any argument or a serious post to answer any of the counter arguments to your silly little video. but then again you havnt postet anything worthwile on here so whatever.

[Conscript]

It is funny how all of you need to make obscure arguments to defeat this.

Troll...nothing to do here.

[Rafiq]

It is funny how all of you need to make obscure arguments to defeat this.

What's an "obscure" argument, to you?

[Liberty]

its funny how you dont come up with any argument or a serious post to answer any of the counter arguments to your silly little video. but then again you havnt postet anything worthwile on here so whatever.
Totalitarianism is the greatest evil known to man. Freedom is the dream of all people, and we must protect them from genocidal maniacs in Communist China who want to bring tyranny to the world.

Capitalism works, it's common knowledge. There is no reason to argue about it, as it WORKS-unlike Communism. Communism just brings tyranny and bloodshed. Communism allied with Nazi Germany. Communism murdered millions of Jews from 1948-53. Communism tried to enslave Western Europe and America.

How can anyone support such an ideology? They want to destroy the freedoms of sovereign states, and commit a mass genocide against the free peoples' of the world. This is what racist anti-American bigots do.

Why don't you move to China, Cuba, or North Korea, and live in your Communist 'paradise?' Or to Syria or Belarus, and live in your Socialist 'paradise.'

As you can see, both Communism and Socialism fail.

[Per Levy]

Why don't you move to China, Cuba, or North Korea, and live in your Communist 'paradise?' Or to Syria or Belarus, and live in your Socialist 'paradise.'

you do realize all these countries are capitalist right?

[Liberty]

you do realize all these countries are capitalist right?
No, they're Communist.

Communism is a far left, big government, and totalitarian.

Most Democrats are Socialists, but Obama is a Communist. He is going to turn the USA into a Stalinist Totalitarian state, where people are subject to the government.

Obama is already making deals with the Chinese to turn the USA into a Totalitarian state.

[Prinskaj]

How can anyone support such an ideology? They want to destroy the freedoms of sovereign states, and commit a mass genocide against the free peoples' of the world.Damn it, you have foiled our evil plan of organized mass slaughter without any clear motivation! All this time organizing labour, fighting for civil-rights and helping the weakest among us, was just act! With the purpose of murdering people for shits and giggles..

But seriously..

Communism is a far left, big government, and totalitarian.Most Democrats are Socialists, but Obama is a Communist. He is going to turn the USA into a Stalinist Totalitarian state, where people are subject to the government.
Obama is already making deals with the Chinese to turn the USA into a Totalitarian state.
You are properly just a troll, or just incredible brainwashed by capitalist media.

[Conscript]

Quick, trace the IP and send a secret police squad, we can't let the truth get out.

Long live the totalitarians!

[Liberty]

You are properly just a troll, or just incredible brainwashed by capitalist media.
I am just stating common knowledge. Everyone knows what Communism is, and I'm not surprised you'd call out the 'Capitalist media.'

The 20th century is over, and we've well uncovered the evil past of Communism.

[Positivist]

It is funny how all of you need to make obscure arguments to defeat this.

What? You just parroted our criticism of you, and then didn't back it up whatsoever. You and all the the other Libertarians are just petite bourgiose losers who want to be radicals but are afraid of anything that isn't Merica strong.

[eric922]

Totalitarianism is the greatest evil known to man. Freedom is the dream of all people, and we must protect them from genocidal maniacs in Communist China who want to bring tyranny to the world.

Capitalism works, it's common knowledge. There is no reason to argue about it, as it WORKS-unlike Communism. Communism just brings tyranny and bloodshed. Communism allied with Nazi Germany. Communism murdered millions of Jews from 1948-53. Communism tried to enslave Western Europe and America.

How can anyone support such an ideology? They want to destroy the freedoms of sovereign states, and commit a mass genocide against the free peoples' of the world. This is what racist anti-American bigots do.

Why don't you move to China, Cuba, or North Korea, and live in your Communist 'paradise?' Or to Syria or Belarus, and live in your Socialist 'paradise.'

As you can see, both Communism and Socialism fail.

You know I could go into a post discussing how capitalism is actually an obstacle to human freedom and self-expression. Indeed that is one of the main complaints of many anarchists, but I based on this post alone, I can tell you wouldn't listen. Seriously, your post sounds like something I read in 6th grade history book when I was at a Southern Baptist school. That's how bad this post is, it isn't even accurate enough for mainstream historians, it's the "creationism" of history. For instance, as much as I despise Stalin and think the USSR failed miserably at building socialism, they did not ally with Nazi Germany. It was an non-aggression treaty. It was still a bad move, since I would have preferred fascism to have been crushed in its infancy, but it wasn't an alliance.

Oh, and using terms like "evil" really seems rather immature. Evil is a subjective religious term. In fact some religions don't even use the term when referring to wrong actions, because it is so subjective and absolute. This isn't the religion or philosophy forums so I won't go into more detail on it, but it really isn't a good way to argue.

[Positivist]

I'm curious are you a 10 year old or a troll?

[Rafiq]

I am just stating common knowledge. Everyone knows what Communism is, and I'm not surprised you'd call out the 'Capitalist media.'

The 20th century is over, and we've well uncovered the evil past of Communism.

So? "Everyone" (Common rabble) thinks that evolution amounts to humans "evolving from monkeys". You're coming off as extremely stupid if you're going to attribute the fact that there exists common ignorance to a strenthening of your argument. We're intellectuals, and you're going to have to utilize a better argument than "well, hur dur a lot of people r uneducated on da subject so dere thoughtz must be troo cuz dey are evverrryonnneezzz"

[Brosa Luxemburg]

No, they're Communist.

No they are not. In these countries exists the law of value, the market, money as the general equivalent, classes, and many other things that specifically characterize bourgeois society.


Communism is a far left, big government, and totalitarian.

No, Communism is a society based on the abolition of the law of value, the market, money as the general equivalent, class distinctions, private property, the state, etc.


Most Democrats are Socialists, but Obama is a Communist.

There is no difference between socialism and communism. Also, no, Obama and the democrats are not in any way, shape, or form socialists. Obama supports the law of value, private property, free-market capitalist institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, etc.


He is going to turn the USA into a Stalinist Totalitarian state, where people are subject to the government.

Nope.


Obama is already making deals with the Chinese to turn the USA into a Totalitarian state.

Fun fact, China is a capitalist state.

[Liberty]

So? "Everyone" (Common rabble) thinks that evolution amounts to humans "evolving from monkeys". You're coming off as extremely stupid if you're going to attribute the fact that there exists common ignorance to a strenthening of your argument. We're intellectuals, and you're going to have to utilize a better argument than "well, hur dur a lot of people r uneducated on da subject so dere thoughtz must be troo cuz dey are evverrryonnneezzz"
We fought against Soviet Imperialism for years, and we eventually liberated them from Totalitarian rule.
People died left and right from the evil that radiated off of it.

Why on earth do you want to return to such a state? Don't you know Communism is evil?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

We fought against Soviet Imperialism for years, and we eventually liberated them from Totalitarian rule.
People died left and right from the evil that radiated off of it.

Why on earth do you want to return to such a state? Don't you know Communism is evil?

Oh, yeah we fought "Soviet Imperialism". Oh wait, no it was just American imperialism and we didn't liberate anyone. I made this point against you here.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2484941&postcount=177

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2484944&postcount=178

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2485036&postcount=180

[l'Enfermé]

Well that's it guys, I'm off to live in the Syrian socialist paradise. Anyways how did communists murder millions of Jews if the Holocaust decimated the world Jewish population from about 16 million to about 11, and in 1953 it was about 11.5 million? Did the Jewish population grow from 11 million in 1945 to 15 in 1948, a period of three years, whereupon communists began this killing of Jews? I don't get it. Maybe the corpses of Holocaust victims rose from their graves and evil communists killed them a second time?

[Positivist]

We fought against Soviet Imperialism for years, and we eventually liberated them from Totalitarian rule.
People died left and right from the evil that radiated off of it.

Why on earth do you want to return to such a state? Don't you know Communism is evil?

1. The Soviet union, China, Cuba, etc. are, and never wore communist. Communism, by definition, is a stateless, classless, communal society where the means of production (resources, tools) are commonly owned. Was this the case in any of the countries you listed? No.

2. You are correct that the rulers of these countries did call themselves communists but that does not mean that they are. Just because a someone, or a group of someones claim to be something, does not mean that they are that thing. If this was the case, then since the Nazis claimed that the Germanic people were a superior race descended from giants known as "Aryans" that it was true.

3. What kind of "freedom" do workers in the capitalist countries of east Asia enjoy? They go to work for a dollar a day and produce the commodities that make American and European capitalists millionaires. I'm assuming your definition of "freedom" has something to do with acting as one desires to act? Are you telling me that these people want to subject themselves to tremendous boredom, and physical exhaustion so that someone else can reap the benefits? Well they don't. They are forced to take these jobs because if they don't, they will die. If this is labor is voluntary, then so is labor performed at gunpoint.

[Rafiq]

We fought against Soviet Imperialism for years, and we eventually liberated them from Totalitarian rule.
People died left and right from the evil that radiated off of it.

Why on earth do you want to return to such a state? Don't you know Communism is evil?

I don't seek a return to anything. I seek the destruction of Bourgeois society and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Any questions?


20th century Communism was a catastrophe, but resorting to moralist arguments that are blown out of proportion are useful, actually perhaps insulting to those that really suffered. 20th century Communism was a catastrophe for reasons alien to the ones you subscribe to. Yes, Communism failed, but why? Name me a Communist country, that of which, sprouted from an already industrialized country. There wasn't any. And since Communists seek the dictatorship of the proletariat, how can you have a dictatorship of the proletariat in a country with not only few proletarians, but one that possesses the burden of being surrounded by many hostile capitalist powers, of which are trying to constantly sabotage and siege your state? A police state would be inevitable.

[Rafiq]

Fuck this! Liberty, you're such a moron, but you're the only antagonism existent currently in OI. And because of this, since you're too easy, you're dumbing all of us down. Come on! I want to argue someone whose at least a little bit intelligent! Fuck this shit, man!

[Liberty]

1. The Soviet union, China, Cuba, etc. are, and never wore communist. Communism, by definition, is a stateless, classless, communal society where the means of production (resources, tools) are commonly owned. Was this the case in any of the countries you listed? No.

That's Communism on paper; we know in real life that it doesn't work that way.


I seek the destruction of Bourgeois society and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Any questions?
Thanks for admitting that you're a bloodthirsty genocidist.


Name me a Communist country, that of which, sprouted from an already industrialized country.
How about those Spaniards that you massacred from '36-'39?

[Positivist]

That's Communism on paper; we know in real life that it doesn't work that way.



No, we know that communism didn't work in those countries. And do you have any explanation of why that is? And please something more sophisticated than "it just doesn't work in reality." Why doesn't it work in reality expalin that to me? I, and most other communists already have an explanation for why communism wasn't successfully implemented.

Civil and revolutionary war necessitatated a central governing authority, as did rapid industrialization.

[Liberty]

And do you have any explanation of why that is? And please something more sophisticated than "it just doesn't work in reality."
Why doesn't it work in reality expalin that to me? I, and most other communists already have an explanation for why communism wasn't successfully implemented.
Communism suggests things that are contrary to human nature. First, if the workers were to gain power, all that would ensue is a pillaging of all the wealth of society.

Just look at the countries I listed before. When they tried to implement Communism, someone just took power and massively murdered millions of people.

It was done first by Lenin, then Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Tito, etc.

[eric922]

Communism suggests things that are contrary to human nature. First, if the workers were to gain power, all that would ensue is a pillaging of all the wealth of society.

Just look at the countries I listed before. When they tried to implement Communism, someone just took power and massively murdered millions of people.

It was done first by Lenin, then Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Tito, etc.

Human nature? What is that? Define it for me.

[Liberty]

Human nature? What is that? Define it for me.
Greed, Selfishness, Opportunism, Self-righteousness, etc.

[#FF0000]

It is funny how all of you need to make obscure arguments to defeat this.

my arguments weren't "obscure" (you meant abstract, I think). Capitalism simple, flat out, does not work the way this video thinks it is working.

And as another user pointed out, this video doesn't even engage with the Marxist conception of Exploitation.

I'm sorry dude but this is a very poor video and a very poor argument.

[eric922]

Greed, Selfishness, Opportunism, Self-righteousness, etc.
How are any of these traits intrinsically tied to human nature? You just listed off a bunch of negative traits without telling me how they define humanity. Humans are not basically selfish. To survive humans have had to form collective groups. It is how we evolved.

Ignoring that, let's say for the sake of argument you are correct. The majority of people are workers, it is in their selfish best interest to abolish capitalism and take control of the means of production.

Your human nature argument is false, and even if it is true, it's a poor defense for capitalism.

[Per Levy]

Greed, Selfishness, Opportunism, Self-righteousness, etc.

so you throw your mother of a cliff for an ipad i see, since you are so selfish, greedy and opportunistic. guess what, societies shape "human nature" there is nothing fix about "human nature" it changes and is different for almost any other human being.

[#FF0000]

Totalitarianism is the greatest evil known to man. Freedom is the dream of all people, and we must protect them from genocidal maniacs in Communist China who want to bring tyranny to the world.

China isn't communist. It's barely been nominally communist since Mao, and even then, I'd argue that it functioned as a capitalist society, with the state simply taking the place of the bourgeoisie.


Capitalism works, it's common knowledge. There is no reason to argue about it, This isn't how a discussion works.


Why don't you move to China, Cuba, or North Korea, and live in your Communist 'paradise?' Or to Syria or Belarus, and live in your Socialist 'paradise.'
Because these are state-capitalist countries -- not 'communist' or 'socialist' in anything other than perhaps name.


Communism is a far left, big government, and totalitarian.
Nope.


Most Democrats are Socialists, but Obama is a Communist. He is going to turn the USA into a Stalinist Totalitarian state, where people are subject to the government.Why are communists almost universally opposed to the Democrats and Obama then? The only exception being the CPUSA which is also pretty much the laughing stock of the left?


Why on earth do you want to return to such a state? Don't you know Communism is evil?But we are critical of all of these states.


How about those Spaniards that you massacred from '36-'39?

you mean Franco's fascists, hm?


Communism suggests things that are contrary to human nature.

Human nature doesn't exist in any sort of fixed form, though. Do you realize that human beings have lived in stateless and classless societies for most of our time here on Earth? Hunter-gatherer tribes were, by and large, classless, stateless, and very often without even a gendered division of labor.

Your idea of "human nature" as some fixed thing is just and old, outdated, and incorrect hypothesis. Humans (and their 'nature) are the product of a variety of environmental, social, and other influences.

If you said "human nature" to any scientist or sociologist or anthropologist they'd laugh in your face, honestly.

[#FF0000]

Anyway before we go any farther I should probably just say that, Liberty, you're pretty much entirely ignorant of leftist ideology and what communists and socialists are and what we believe. I don't know you, but I do know that nothing you've ever heard about communist ideology has ever been from a communist -- only people who are opposed by communists.

I'm not saying "oh if only you REALLY understood then you'd agree!". I'm pointing this out to ask you to recognize your own virtually complete ignorance of our worldview, so that, instead of flailing at us with these entirely off-base attacks founded on false premises, you can actually engage with us on equal footing.

[Liberty]

Anyway before we go any farther I should probably just say that, Liberty, you're pretty much entirely ignorant of leftist ideology and what communists and socialists are and what we believe. I don't know you, but I do know that nothing you've ever heard about communist ideology has ever been from a communist -- only people who are opposed by communists.

Fine, why don't give me a 'Leftist(idealist)' definition of Communism then?

[eric922]

Fine, why don't give me a 'Leftist(idealist)' definition of Communism then?
A stateless classless society.

[Liberty]

A stateless classless society.
Here is what someone from a former Communist country thinks.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/2533043_460s.jpg

[#FF0000]

Here is what someone from a former Communist country thinks.

neat

anyway yeah theres no reason to engage you in discussion so i'm out (i'd encourage everyone else to do the same and find something useful to do instead of talking to this dude. read a book or something)

[eric922]

Here is what someone from a former Communist country thinks.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/2533043_460s.jpg

That's the weakest appeal to authority ever. Oh I'm from a capitalist country does that magically make me right when I criticize it?

[Positivist]

A picture of Putin sighing? Ok your a troll.

[#FF0000]

nah just a dumb guy.

like I said, don't bother. let the thread die and go do something useful, folks.

[Rafiq]

How about those Spaniards that you massacred from '36-'39?

You didn't answer the fucking question. We massacred Spaniards? Tell me, are you a fan of Franco?

[Rafiq]

Name: Liberty

Description: Hi, my name is Liberty. I support Francisco Franco, because he gave the Spanish the Liberty they deserved!

[Rafiq]

Fine, why don't give me a 'Leftist(idealist)' definition of Communism then?

Who cares what Idealists think? Communism is the embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class, just as Liberalism (and Fascism, at times) is as such for the Bourgeois class.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Fine, why don't give me a 'Leftist(idealist)' definition of Communism then?

First, Communism has absolutely nothing to do with "idealism" and is actually opposed to idealism. We are materialists, believing that the material precedes the ideal and the material influences the ideal, not the other way around.

We believe that in a society divided into classes, the main and antagonistic 2 classes being the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, is an inefficient model plagued by severe contradictions. These contradiction cause a fall in the general rate of profit and the "boom and bust" cycles are generally built into the system.

We believe that there needs to be a proletariat revolution in which the proletariat overthrow the bourgeoisie. The state, we believe, is an organ of class rule. Right now, we consider society to be a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" because the bourgeoisie is the ruling class, thus the state acts in it's interests (this is ensured through anything from the defense of private property to what's termed "capital flight"). The proletariat should overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and a dictatorship of the proletariat, as it is commonly called, should be instituted. This is different from the "dictatorships" you are thinking of. The dotp doesn't advocate "the rule of one man" and proposes the proletariat (the majority of the population) should actively participate in the administration of their state. The dotp seeks to defend the revolution from violent counter-revolutionaries and is a transition stage to abolish classes, the state, and other remnants of bourgeois society. This is what we term as "communism".

We do not know what structures will exist and how the dictatorship of the proletariat and communism will function because, as I stated before, the material precedes the ideal. Every attempt to do such a thing is purely speculation.

[eric922]

Just a heads up, because Liberty doesn't even know enough about Marxism to understand the roles of the philosophical terms Idealism and Materialism, I'm pretty sure he means idealism in the everyday usage of the term. As in someone who is naive about the world and how it works. Once again, it just shows his ignorance since he didn't bother to clarify which way he was using the term.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

No, they're Communist.

Communism is a far left, big government, and totalitarian.

Most Democrats are Socialists, but Obama is a Communist. He is going to turn the USA into a Stalinist Totalitarian state, where people are subject to the government.

Obama is already making deals with the Chinese to turn the USA into a Totalitarian state.


http://solutionproblem.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/cant-tell-if-trolling.jpg

[#FF0000]

oh hey look and there is rafiq getting internet mad at a person who is not worth engaging in discussion.

y'all are (1) bad at identifying trolls and (2) easily trolled by people who aren't even trolling.

i bet you dummies get suckered into arguing on youtube too

[rylasasin]

I am just stating common knowledge. Everyone knows the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat, and sickness and diseases are caused by witches and demons, and I'm not surprised you'd call out the 'Papal Propaganda.'

As you can see, Argumentum ad populum is not a valid argument by any means.

[Comrade #138672]

I don't see why communism would necessarily cause genocide. Even if it's a troll, there are many people who believe this. Genocide is contrary to communism, since genocide implies that a lower class exists that deserves elimination. That's not a classless society. Therefore it can not be communism by definition.

[Raúl Duke]

Saying "capitalism works" is a cheap argument.

Slavery "worked"
Feudalism "worked"

But the question is, for whom?
Right now there's a recession, maybe a depression or "an economic crisis" (as the European left prefer to term it. While the US was using the term recession, Italians used the term "la crisi," crisis). People are becoming unemployed, wages/salaries are dropping, education is becoming more expensive, massive personal debt, etc There are still people starving in some parts of the world, people working in sweatshops for barely livable wages, etc. All the while, the financial elites are doing just fine. For them, capitalism surely does work; but does it work for everyone? No, classist economic systems only work for the interests of the elite, the upper class, in the end.

None of us here are part of this financial elite, a substantial number of us are struggling students getting into large debts towards an increasingly uncertain future or young workers faced with precariousness in the job market, wages that can't keep up with the rising costs of living, etc; perhaps both students and workers. To us, capitalism doesn't work and it's system propped up with lies like the ones you espoused. Capitalism has nothing to do with "freedom" or "liberty," it's all about capital (i.e. "money," property, etc), the people who have it, and profits. Let's forget about whatever the fuck definition of "communism" you wanna go with, are you so close-minded and conservative not to consider the possibility of something better then the rotting edifice of capitalism? Why stick with something that doesn't economically work at all for the majority, is inefficient, etc? A system that works only for a minority is tyranny, capitalism itself is tyrannical.

Of course, I'm wasting my breath. You're only a troll.

[Zostrianos]

Most Democrats are Socialists, but Obama is a Communist. He is going to turn the USA into a Stalinist Totalitarian state, where people are subject to the government.
Obama is already making deals with the Chinese to turn the USA into a Totalitarian state.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Wow.

Ok guys, mystery solved, he's a Teabagger.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

These kinds of threads always cheer me up. And depress me. It's funny to read but, troll or not, there are people who genuinely think like this...

[Aussie Trotskyist]

A capitalist can pay a worker as much as they have to, they still exploit them by taking the product they make and selling it at a higher price.

[m1omfg]

I honestly don't believe that Liberty is actually from a post-communist country. I'm from a post-communist country and people tend to have far more balanced, "not black or white but shades of grey" views about that period. My father is an anti-communist, but when I told him what American rightwingers think about communism and the world he called it "insane" and "fascist". I never met a person who experienced Soviet style socialism and thinks Obama is a communist or that communists killed millions of Jews.

Oh and your wonderful free capitalism that "works" kills 14 million people in the world each year by malnutrition.