No.1436911
Did this picture just btfo /leftypol/ ?
No.1436920
someone /r/ing the response picture
No.1436946
>>1436930
Except that's not true. The factory was built by a contracted construction company, whom he paid for, the machines were ordered from a different factory, and he paid for them. The raw materials were obviously mined by miners, refined in a refinery, and then he bought them.
He's the one incurring risk, investing his capital and hoping he can multiply it. That's his job. The worker is just working on a cushy salary, exchanging that risk for security.
No.1436949
>>1436930
>mfw BTFO'ing libertarians who suck the dick of property rights
No.1436953
>>1436946
A C U S H Y S A L A R Y
No.1436956
>>1436946
>>1436946
>The factory was built by a contracted construction company, whom he paid for, the machines were ordered from a different factory, and he paid for them.
And these companies just created that stuff from the nothing. How delusional can you be?
No.1436966
>>1436956
What do you mean, from nothing? They start with somebody who has capital.
A guy with some savings (capital) decides he wants to create a construction company. He finds a bunch of unemployed, tells them he'll pay them a salary if they build things for him, and then starts to negotiate contracts with other investors, such as capitalists who are trying to get a factory built.
No.1436970
>>1436966
Yeah, and capital comes from nothing, right?
No.1436972
>>1436966
Ah, yes, and it would be impossible to build any of that without money. The cement just wouldn't settle right.
No.1436974
>>1436966
You know this cycle of finding the guy who has capital goes all the way back to the first asshole who ever picked up a rock and forced his fellow man to work for him on pain of death right?
Capital accumulation does not take place naturally for N individual unless it is coerced. Not to mention you fundamentally misunderstand that these people are having the I surplus labor value exploited by the capitalists at every stage of this process.
No.1436982
>>1436970
It comes from his savings. Maybe he worked a job for fifty years, rose through the ranks and got paid higher and higer salaries, eventually saving enough to invest on his own. Or he inherited the money, from somebody who once did that.
No.1436985
>>1436966
Also, you fucking retard, they are not talking about HIS workers they are talking about workers as a class.
No.1436992
>>1436982
You mean it comes from his… labor.
No.1436994
>>1436972
Yeah but mane who whould DO stuff if they don't get paid I mean everyone is lazy I'm totally not projecting
>>1436982
Kid, almost all companies are funded by loans. That's what's they're going to teach you when daddy sends you to a private university to study business administration.
No.1437001
>>1436982
Oh great he saved up enough money to exploit everyone around him… Yay?
News flash no one can save up enough money through honest labor to build a fucking INDUSTRIAL FACILITY!!
Maybe a sandwich shop at best. The only way you acquire that much money is exploiting the financial system to get money you didn't earn or some other nefarious means. No o e in the history of the planet has ever """"""""""earned""""""""" a billion dollars.
No.1437004
>>1437001
muh entrepreneurship
No.1437019
>>1436949
Sargon without makeup.
No.1437021
>>1436974
No, it goes back to the first guy who realized that rather than just freely share whatever food he hunted/gathered or whatever shit he made with the rest of the tribe/clan/whatever, he could demand some service in return.
>>1436985
Why would that guy have any control over workers that aren't his?
>>1436994
The lender is a capitalist dumb dumb. If the founder of a company doesn't invest any of his own money he's just an employee too.
>>1437001
Okay you start with a sandwich shop. When the sandwich shop is essential, you make another sandwich shop. Now you're the owner of a sandwich chain.
No.1437035
>>1437021
>he could demand some service in return
And what if your demands weren't enough anymore and nobody worked for you? You can't run two sandwich shops by yourself, much less a chain.
No.1437043
>>1437035
>and what if your demands weren't enough anymore
Do you realize what you're saying?
If you can't successfully run a sandwich shop, you're not a very good sandwich shop owner. Of course you won't be able to open a second one.
No.1437050
>No, it goes back to the first guy who realized that rather than just freely share whatever food he hunted/gathered or whatever shit he made with the rest of the tribe/clan/whatever, he could demand some service in return.
Slavery was totes never a thing in antiquity guide.
>Why would that guy have any control over workers that aren't his
Its a commentary on class relations. All workers are exploited by the capitalists class.
>Okay you start with a sandwich shop. When the sandwich shop is essential, you make another sandwich shop. Now you're the owner of a sandwich chain
Yeah and then you hire workers to run the shops for you and pay them a tiny fraction of the profits that those stores actually generate and you sit on your fat porky ads all day and rake in a vast majority of the profits because some spooky piece of paper says its yours even though at this point you do jack fucking shit to contribute to the actual running of the business.
No.1437055
>>1437043
He is saying what if the workers get tired of you profiting off of their labor.
No.1437056
>>1437055
What are they gonna do about it?
No.1437057
>>1436911
>60 plus years later. Still concerned about hippies.
I for one feel blown and fucked out as they say.
No.1437061
>>1437050
>you hire workers to run the shops for you and pay them a tiny fraction of the profits that those stores actually generate and you sit on your fat porky ads all day and rake in a vast majority of the profits because some spooky piece of paper says its yours even though at this point you do jack fucking shit to contribute to the actual running of the business
this
No.1437062
>>1437056
I said it in my post: stop working for you. Can you run an entire sandwich chain by yourself? Are you the fucking Flash?
No.1437065
>>1437062
Okay. They can do that. I'll hire different workers who don't want to starve.
No.1437067
>>1437056
Strike.
Preferably though they just string you up by a light pole and suede the sandwich shop for themselves.
But on the real though petti bourgious business owners are kinda forced to adopt this exploitative model because if the didn't they would not be able to compete with the other ruthlessly efficient capitalist enterprises that exist around him and our number him in capital and manpower. They deserve the rope far less than actual captains of industry.
No.1437074
>>1437065
what if they kill you and run the place by themselves, there surely are some people who'd like to do your "managing" job earning way less. no one wll miss you.
No.1437075
>>1437050
>Yeah and then you hire workers to run the shops for you and pay them a tiny fraction of the profits that those stores actually generate and you sit on your fat porky ads all day and rake in a vast majority of the profits because some spooky piece of paper says its yours even though at this point you do jack fucking shit to contribute to the actual running of the business.
Classcucks btfo eternally.
No.1437077
>>1437065
Scabs get their heads busted. And you have to hire scabs at inflated wages so you lose profits. Also these people are striking outside the establishment and preventing customers and workers from entering easily.
Also think about what you just said for a minute. You unironically suggested that people should willingly subject themselves to exploitation and be grateful for it or they should DIE!!!
That's evil if I ever saw it. Look in the mirror you sicko.
No.1437082
>>1437067
Claim the sandwich shops for themselves.
No.1437095
>>1437021
What validates the ownership of the things you bought? There is no such thing as ownership, it is merely a human concept. Only two things assure ownership, common agrrement or power. As of right now the state grants ownership as a right because it hold most of the power, police, army, jails and all the good stuff. but still the state's authority is still validated by common agreement. If workers some day decide that they are doing most of the work and take over conrol of the companies there will bw no magic morals to save you. During the middle ages the nobility owned the land and the tools used to revolt against them.
No.1437100
>>1436966
> They start with somebody who has capital.
And where do you think capital comes from, idiot?
LABOR
No.1437102
>>1437095
Ancaps are the modern day defenders of monarchy and aristocracy. Really makes you think.
No.1437108
>>1437082
>>1437074
You mean steal my property? That's a violation of natural law. Any state formed on the basis of stealing people's property is a tyrrany.
>>1437077
Of course workers can strike if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. If they're right, and there's no gov interference, they'll get paid more. If they're not, they'll lose their jobs. Sound familiar?
>>1437095
Ownership is inherent in nature.
No.1437110
OP stopped replying.
Officially btfo.
Communism wins again.
No.1437114
>>1437110
I assume you're talking about me, and I'm not OP.
No.1437116
>>1437108
>You mean steal my property? That's a violation of natural law. Any state formed on the basis of stealing people's property is a tyrrany.
>he says, as every state that's ever existed proceeds to steal people's "property"
>Of course workers can strike if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth.
As long as a capitalist is making a profit, that's never gonna happen.
>Ownership is inherent in nature.
This just in, foxes collect rent on all the shit they pee on.
No.1437118
>>1437116
None of those are arguments
BTW what do the red flags mean?
No.1437126
>You mean steal my property? That's a violation of natural law. Any state formed on the basis of stealing people's property is a tyrrany.
Yes steal your property and literally murder you if you won't let it go. If a man was stealing 9/10the of what I produce everyday and telling me to be happy with it I would kill him. Wouldn't you?
What do you mean peasant? You want rights over the land and your property?!?! Don't you know that is theft? I have controls over the maner because of divine right!!
>Of course workers can strike if they feel they aren't being paid what they're worth. If they're right, and there's no gov interference, they'll get paid more. If they're not, they'll lose their jobs. Sound familiar?
And the arbiter of the fairness of the strike is the very person who is already paying them shit wages. That is like getting a slave owner to determine if he is treating his slaves properly.
>Ownership is inherent in nature
No it isn't, natural law is the anal version of divine right, moving on.
No.1437127
>>1437126
Ancap not anal god damn it
No.1437128
>>1437108
>That's a violation of natural law.
>Ownership is inherent in nature.
>we are hitting levels of spook that shouldn't even be possible
No.1437130
>>1437118
>None of those are arguments
t. anon with zero reading comprehension
No.1437135
>>1437108
>You mean steal my property? That's a violation of natural law. Any state formed on the basis of stealing people's property is a tyrrany.
Your conception of "property" is based off the indefinite entitlement to something that was once owned by everyone, which cannot be maintained in a stateless society.
No.1437139
>>1437118
Go back to making shitty vlogs meme man
No.1437141
>>1437126
>>1437128
I'm not ancap. The state exists to enforce natural law. Any state that breaks natural law is tyranny and any that fails to enforce it is too. Well, there's really no difference. This has been true since the Greek times.
Also property is inherent in nature. There is no animal that won't protect their body, their children, their shelter, their land.
No.1437143
>>1437141
>Also property is inherent in nature. There is no animal that won't protect their body, their children, their shelter, their land.
Private property is not inherent in nature.
No.1437145
>>1437141
>There is no animal that won't protect their body, their children, their shelter, their land.
none of which are private property
No.1437146
Honestly I kinda want the anal revolution to happen because all of the workers would just immediately revolt and create a socialist collective almost immediately.
No.1437147
>>1437146
>anal revolution
I don't even care anymore its too good.
No.1437149
>>1436946
>The factory was built by a contracted construction company
Workers
>the machines were ordered from a different factory
Workers
>The raw materials were obviously mined by miners, refined in a refinery
Workers.
>he bought them
Yes, that is his """job""". Which, in material terms, is nothing more than shuffling paper around.
>He's the one incurring risk
No. The workers are going to be the first to feel any negative effects from a downturn in the business, long before the capitalist loses a single penny out of his own wallet. And, these days, most executives have "golden parachutes", where they get big severance packages should they need to step down or the business turns south.
They risk nothing.
No.1437150
>>1437141
Natural law=whatever I like at the time
No.1437157
>>1437145
Of course it is. If you claim land before someone else does, it's yours. It doesn't matter if you're currently using it.
No.1437160
>>1437141
>Also property is inherent in nature. There is no animal that won't protect their body, their children, their shelter, their land.
>is-ought
>The state exists to enforce natural law.
can you elaborate on this natural law of yours
if it is based on "human nature", you're just making things up
de-spook yourself, then come back
>>1437157
I claim everything in the universe that someone else hasn't claimed.
No.1437162
>>1437135
Of course it can't, that's why anarchy is tyranny.
>>1437150
No natural is very clear and indisputable, hence the natural part. It's just the base axioms of human behavior
No.1437163
>>1437141
Lefists make a distinction between the house you live in, your toothbrush, dildo and video games (personal property) versus houses you """"own"""" to rent out to suckers or a factory that you fill with slaves that totally aren't because you pay them although their entire existance is in your hooves (private property).
No.1437164
>>1437157
Someone forgot to tell all those people in the middle east that they are actually stealing Babilonian and Assyrian property.
No.1437167
>No natural is very clear and indisputable, hence the natural part. It's just the base axioms of human behavior
No it isn't. Its something people in the 19th venture invented to justify theft.
No.1437168
>>1437001
There are a few things wrong with this:
>Assuming that earning large sums of money is ALWAYS achieved by unjust means
>Assuming that the workers have the skill to operate their own factory as efficiently as it ran before
>How the fuck is this even organised? A central government? A confederation? Just pure anarchy? What provides the competition and drive for success?
No.1437171
>>1437162
>nature is prescriptive
this is advanced autism
No.1437173
>>1437141
>natural law
WEW
>is-ought
W E W
E
W
No.1437175
>>1437157
>Of course it is. If you claim land before someone else does, it's yours. It doesn't matter if you're currently using it.
The logic of a thief.
No.1437176
>>1437074
Then if there is an afterlife I will be laughing at them from it when they all starve to death or all have to scrape a living through subsistence (or just give up and go back to capitalism).
No.1437177
>>1437162
>Hobbesian autist detected
by your logic, absolute monarchy is not a tyranny.
No.1437179
>>1437160
Natural law is observable via the scientific method
And you can't claim shit you can't even reach.
No.1437181
>>1437108
>Any state formed on the basis of stealing people's property is a tyrrany.
then all states are tyranny
No.1437182
>>1437177
Nope, as long as it protects natural law it's not.
Again This has been true since the Greeks, read antigone
No.1437184
>>1437162
>Of course it can't, that's why anarchy is tyranny.
You agree with me, but then continue on about how there is a natural law that justifies private property. You contradict yourself.
No.1437185
>>1437179
>>1437182
Where do I go to appeal these laws? The Natural Court?
No.1437186
>>1437162
>lol animals do some shit vaguely like a much more complex human social institution if you look at it sideways and squint, that completely justifies that social institution and makes it beyond criticism
No.1437194
>>1437182
>as long as my spooks get protected, I'm free
top kek
No.1437195
>>1437181
Taxation is determined via the free market because the people will revolt if it's not worth the government's services.
And no, that's not violence/violation of natural law/the creation of a tyranny because it's self defense, as the state would be committing violence as its stealing
No.1437197
>>1437195
>natural law
You have already admitted that private property is not validated by a natural law, because you agree that the state is essential to maintain it.
No.1437198
>>Assuming that earning large sums of money is ALWAYS achieved by unjust means
If you got it from extracting the surplus labor value from your workers then yes it is ill gotten wealth
>Assuming that the workers have the skill to operate their own factory as efficiently as it ran before
All the actual running of the business is done by middle management. And what little the CEO's and their ilk do could be delighted to an elected body of worker representatives.
>>How the fuck is this even organised? A central government? A confederation? Just pure anarchy? What provides the competition and drive for success?
I mean yeah there are a lot of different options you can go with.
No.1437200
No.1437202
>>1437197
That's not a contradiction
No.1437203
>>1437202
So is the state also a part of "natural law"?
No.1437205
>>1437168
>Assuming that earning large sums of money is ALWAYS achieved by unjust means
What is "just" under capitalism is not to us. All profits are made from the surplus of value of labor and the manipulation of money to generate wealth is useless. Workers do have the skill to run the factory on their own, you are thinking we would have no managers. The factory owner hires slaves to run the factory too not just the other flesh cogs that just run the machines.
Social mobility is more more less a myth, those who have gone from the oppressed class to the slaver class have been mostly through luck, they were not necesarily way more talented or smarter or harder working than other proles.
No.1437214
>>1437203
The state enforces natural law
No.1437217
>>1437214
Things that are natural need not be enforced. It is in fact impossible to be unnatural.
No.1437219
>>1437214
If its natural then why does the state need to enforce it? Notice how the state doesn't enforce gravity.
No.1437222
>>1436946
>The factory was built by a contracted construction company
…so workers
>machines were ordered from a different factory
…where they were made by factory workers
>raw materials were obviously mined by miners
…mined by workers
>refined in a refinery
by workers at the refinery
Holy fuck you're retarded
No.1437223
>>1437077
>provide them with an opportunity to voluntarily make capital through my own investments in exchange for labor (which, I must reiterate, they voluntarily accept)
>sperg out because they think they can take my investment, raised through my capital, earned through my labor, and claim it as their own
>essentially, it's completely fine to steal what is my own investment, formed through my own ambition, work, and skill set; just because you contribute to it voluntarily
If ownership is such a meme, then why are commies so desperate to achieve ownership of what isn't theirs. It's really just a shitty excuse to larp
No.1437226
>>1437202
Yes it is. Natural law can exist without the state. We see that people have owned personal items and that murder is avoided in pre-state societies. We do not see any evidence of indefinite ownership of unused or unoccupied land.
No.1437227
>>1437179
>Natural law is observable via the scientific method
Your whole argument relies on a magical natural law, please elaborate on this natural law. How do we find out things about it empirically, and how on earth can it claim to be normative, in light of the very well-known is-ought problem.
>And you can't claim shit you can't even reach.
Why not? The capitalist can own all kinds of stuff he won't reach, all by the magical string of ownership.
No.1437229
>>1437217
It's still law, meaning people can break it. It's just the base axioms we start with
No.1437234
No.1437235
>>1437214
The state exists to manage class antagonisms. Part of that antagonisms is not your so-called natural law (which they conditioned you to believe that capitalism is a force of nature like gravity) it is property rights, the ability to own, extract surplus value of absentee ownership it is an entitlement that they guarantee by force that you receive without contributing to it in any menaningful way, via labor for instance.
No.1437237
>>1437214
If "natural law" is natural, why does it need to be enforced?
Though, as the other anon said, nothing is "unnatural". Nature doesn't exist. Or, more precisely, everything is a part of nature, the "nature" that somehow exists outside of the world of humanity and mandates laws and ideology like some kind of secular deity does exist.
No.1437240
No.1437247
>>1437195
Yeah I guess if you can just make up whatever meanings on your own then that totally makes sense
No.1437256
>>1437108
>That's a violation of natural law
No.1437259
Two many replies to quote.
Natural law is a set of axioms. Like the peano axioms for numbers. Look up piano axioms and think of how the same thing would apply to human nature
No.1437265
>>1437259
>he thinks universal axioms are real
top kek
No.1437267
>>1437259
>muh axioms
Calling something an axiom does not shield it from scrutiny and rejection. Furthermore this is irrelevant because you said that we can deduce natural law by scientific observation, and I pointed out in >>1437226 that private property does not exist within natural law.
No.1437269
I would image there would be a lot of engineers that would love to build solar arrays in outer space or design cars that don't require lithium or petroleum. They can't because it isn't immediately profitable to oil and auto porky. Scientists who get grants are the most "productive" they produce results using shoddy science that makes porky feel good. Often they are not studying what they want precisely because of capital.
So much for the incentive for innovation by capital. All it does is provide an incentive to generate profit, greed, not what is needed. Why should we continue to have a system that serves only sociopaths?
No.1437276
No.1437280
>>1437205
>Wealth is bad because it was garnered unjustly
Someone has to run the show. You're just mad it isn't you. If you want wealth at all, then it is necessary for someone to manage it. There is not communism, because the workers will gradually evolve into the new elites themselves. But, oh, I'm sorry, human nature is a meme, right? I'm sure the workers will prove incorruptible comrade!
>>1437234
>ownership being a meme is a meme
No.1437285
>>1437280
>Someone has to run the show.
And it has to be one person at the top of the pyramid, right?
Go blow your god emperor and pat your back, just don't expect the rest of us to want to choke on cock too.
No.1437288
>>1437280
>Someone has to run the show.
>He things control isn't separable from property
No.1437290
>>1437280
The whole point is to create a system where exploitation is eliminated via electing immediately recalable council representatives, workers councils, direct democracy etc.
No.1437294
>>1437259
You're wrong. There is no subjective law that suddenly becomes unbendable. Reality only follows itself, not what we dictate. The argument is not over subjective law and objective law, but over what constitutes objective law.
No.1437297
>>1437280
Private ownership, a form of ownership in which one is entitled to something that he is neither using, nor occupying, but for the sole purpose of denying it to others to charge rent, is something that has not existed before the state and is entirely a legal fiction.
It is also a positive right, an entitlement, because it allows one to claim property owned by everyone for himself, doing so without the consent of every individual, and crucially supported by state force.
No.1437304
>>1436946
>Incurring Risk
>Porkies lose their house when a venture crashes, not the laid off worker.
No.1437309
You dumb fucks either don't want someone in charge (>>1437288), or you do (>>1437290 >>1437285); simple as that. It's either anarchy (which is self explanatory as to why that's a bad idea), or somebody/something in charge that will gradually revert to pseudo capitalism as they realise that capitalism is the most efficient system (making themselves the new elites).
No.1437315
>>1437309
>anarchy (which is self explanatory as to why that's a bad idea)
No.1437325
>>1437309
>capitalism
>efficient
No.1437326
>>1437297
If you don't think ownership is something that should exist, then why is it imperative that the workers own the factory in the first place? If it is a meme, then what is the point of the factory? Maybe communists should carry this to its logical conclusion and stop owning their bodies.
No.1437329
>>1437326
He didn't say all ownership doesn't exist. Are you blind or just disingenuous?
No.1437332
>>1437326
>is still too much of a political illiterate autist to understand what private property is
No.1437339
>>1437309
>anarchy (which is self explanatory as to why that's a bad idea)
>capitalism is the most efficient system
No.1437343
>>1437309
>You dumb fucks either don't want someone in charge or you do.
First of all, this board is a big tent between libertarian socialists, anarchists, Marxists, and Leninists. We have our own disagreements. Some want state socialism (Leninists), some want stateless socialism (anarchists), and some want socialism with a very small government (libertarians).
Second of all, we actually adhere to the principle espoused by many conservatives (but never applied by them), that those who work are entitled to the fruits of their labor, and that one is not entitled to any amount of wealth he did not himself work for.
>>1437326
>If you don't think ownership is something that should exist, then why is it imperative that the workers own the factory in the first place?
Ownership should absolutely exist. And the people who should own the factory should be those who are occupying it and using it (the workers), not those who are not laboring on it (the capitalists).
No.1437346
>>1437267
Except the axioms are correct. If you guys read books instead of just posting funny stirner maymays you would know that too.
the flaw in your argument is that natural cant exist without the state. Well, it exists, people just won't follow it.
No.1437351
>>1437346
What exactly makes natural law "natural" if people wouldn't follow it without the state?
No.1437352
>>1437339
>anarchy is good.
I'll tell you what, I can't even think of a single reason why anarchy is a preferable system to anything besides just immediately destroying the human race, so you provide me with a reason and I'll shoot it down for you. If I have to educate you, than that's fine, we can take this at baby steps.
No.1437364
>>1437346
But that's contrary to the definition of "natural" you imbecile.
No.1437366
>>1437352
>anarchy
Anarchy is not the same thing as anarchism. Anarchists are not against rules, but rulers.
No.1437367
>>1437352
>this political illiterate probably doesn't even know what anarchism is
No.1437368
>>1437352
I'm not an anarchist, my dude. But saying that it's "self-explanatory" why anarchy is a bad idea is new levels of non-argument.
Besides, you idea of "anarchy" is any situation where there is some hierarchical absolute leader ordained by the will of God "Nature".
In which case I might be an "anarchist" in the sense that I am a socialist.
No.1437371
>>1437366
And hierarchy, I should add.
No.1437373
>>1437368
*where there isn't
No.1437377
>>1437343
>>1437329
>Ownership exists, but only when I define it by my arbitrary idea of what it is
No.1437379
>>1436966
>>1436946
And the picture itself doesn't apply to the construction company because?
No.1437381
>>1437377
>I can't distinguish between things which are and are not means of production.
No.1437388
>>1437351
objective morality
No.1437389
>>1437388
This isn't a time for oxymorons, my friend.
No.1437392
>>1437259
You realize that by definition axioms can be whatever the fuck you want them to be, even (especially) in math, right?
No.1437398
>>1437346
You said earlier that we can deduce natural law empirically. This means that we can look at humans in a stateless environment and see which laws they behave according to. What we find in a nonzero amount of cases:
- respect for human life and punishment of murderers
- (some) respect for women and punishment of rape
- respect for property rights in the form of personal possessions, a house, a farm, anything that an individual is occupying and working on
We do not find in such an environment any instances of people owning things they are not using or occupying for the purpose of rent (landlords, factory owners, banks, real estate, etc) or things like ownership of ideas (intellectual property). Therefore, by empirical methods, we conclude that there is a set of natural rights, but private property does not belong to that set.
No.1437400
>>1437392
No, an axiom is something self-evident
No.1437403
>>1437400
Wrong. An axiom is an initial point from which all reasoning follows.
No.1437405
>>1437398
That's not what I meant. Forget the scientific method part, I take that back
No.1437407
>>1437403
Yes, but unless they're self-evident, they're wrong. You can't just make them up
No.1437409
>>1437407
You can have wrong axioms, but reasoning that is valid (but not sound).
No.1437418
>>1437366
Yes, and look at all the wonderful achievements of both anarchy and anarchism. All none of them. Any society without a hierarchy will develop one, that is the historical imperative.
No.1437422
>>1437409
I don't know what you mean.
You mean like axioms that are consistent with itself but not nature? Cause that's what Marxism is.
No.1437424
>>1437381
>private ownership doesn't exist, unless I'm in charge!
No.1437445
>>1437418
>Yes, and look at all the wonderful achievements of both anarchy and anarchism.
Anarchism as a process of individuals acquiring more power has worked well for societies like Catalonia and Rojava. It is not without its flaws, though.
>Any society without a hierarchy will develop one, that is the historical imperative.
Sure, but we shouldn't aim for the most autocratic, least meritocratic distribution of power and resources.
>>1437422
Yes. You can have an argument whose conclusion follows from the premises (if they were true), but the premises are false.
>Cause that's what Marxism is.
I'm not going to get into a debate about the truthfulness of the premises of Marxism, partly because I'm not even a Marxist, partly because there are Marxists more qualified to address this topic, and mainly because it's not very relevant to the question of ownership (Marxism isn't the only philosophy that has the answer to this question).
>>1437424
There is a real distinction between personal ownership and private ownership.
No.1437447
>>1437422
>marxism is an axiom
No, it's not.
Have you ever taken a single higher level math or philosophy course?
Here's a math axiom for you.
"There are no parallel lines"
When you make this axiom, you have gone and defined different sets of rules for how your math is going to work than if you work in normal Euclidean geometry.
You don't derive axioms from nature, you define the axioms to determine how you're working.
https://youtu.be/SrU9YDoXE88?t=12m29s
It's about infinity, not axioms in general, but he explains it.
No.1437449
>>1437447
That's not an axiom. THat would be a postulate.
No.1437452
>>1437449
They're the same thing.
No.1437453
>>1437449
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/258346/what-is-the-difference-between-an-axiom-and-a-postulate
> 7
down vote
accepted
The terms "postulates" and "axioms" can be used interchangeably: just different words referring to the basic assumptions - the "building blocks" taken as given (assumptions about what we take to be true), which together with primitive definitions, form the foundation upon which theorems are proven and theories are built.
No.1437454
>>1437259
>>1437400
>>1437407
>Natural law is a set of axioms.
>No, an axiom is something self-evident
Self-evident as fuck, as is clear from the fact that nobody agrees with you.
Also, answer >>1437227, especially
>Your whole argument relies on a magical natural law, please elaborate on this natural law. How do we find out things about it empirically, and how on earth can it claim to be normative, in light of the very well-known is-ought problem.
No.1437461
>>1437445
It's clear that you don't think anarchism is a good system, so it's ridiculous why you should argue for it. If you think that we should be more meritocratic, than you may have an argument. Burning everything down (anarchy) or gutting the leadership (anarchism) is not a system, it is a symbol to weakness and failure.
No.1437464
>>1437452
I thought a postulate was something derived from axioms. Like Euclid's five postulates. I guess I was wrong but either way "There are no parallel lines" is not an axiom because it can be proven/unproven, right?
>>1437454
>no one agrees with my capitalist philosophy on a leftist board
No.1437473
>>1437445
>There is a real distinction between personal ownership and private ownership.
Oh, is there? You mean that one is something arbitrarily put in place by the system, while the other is something we arbitrarily say to convince ourselves that we hold any meaning.
No.1437481
>>1437464
"There are no parallel lines" is part of the definition of spherical geometry. You can't prove or disprove it because the axiom isn't a statement about what happens in your system, it is the starting definition of your system. What you find about that system afterward are the theories.
No.1437489
>>1437481
Except the first four can be proven? So that means the last one can be proven, right, just that no one has?
No.1437499
>>1437464
>no one agrees with my capitalist philosophy on a leftist board
>My axioms are ideological
Nice natural law bud.
No.1437514
>>1437489
The fifth one can not be proven for the fact that it is what sets up euclidean geometry as opposed to something like hyperbolic geometry. If you tried to go and prove the fifth postulate, you would just be proving that you are working in euclidean geometry.
The other four aren't even "proven" as axioms. They're "proven" in so far as they can be derived as theorems, but stated as axioms they don't get proven.
No.1437515
>>1437461
I am not an anarchist. I am mainly a libertarian socialist. I believe in the classical liberal idea of upholding the rights of the individual against institutions. I recognize that groups are necessary to defend the individual against other groups. No individual can effectively take on a foreign army, or a corporation, or a government, so collectivist institutions (armies, unions, citizenry) are necessary insofar as they exist to defend the rights of the individual. Where collectivism goes wrong is when it exists only for itself, in the case of a bureaucracy, a central planner, a corporation, a corrupt union, and so on.
I also believe that people are only entitled to what they personally labor for, and that since all land was once unowned, it should be relinquished once it becomes unused again.
Capitalism and Leninism are similar in that they are very anti-individual. Ironically capitalists, who criticize the Soviet Union and other Leninist states for central planning and authoritarianism, are all too eager to defend the same things that happen under capitalism (central planning in corporations, massive hierarchy, state interference to protect capitalists, propaganda by corporations, subjugation of the individual under a dictatorship, and so on).
No.1437542
>>1437473
Personal property: Your personal belongings
Private property: Ownership of means of production
We can call it "bourgeois property" if you like. That's what we're talking about.
No.1437567
>>1437542
We don't own anything but what we say we do. Private or personal. Without order to orchestrate society, and hierarchy to achieve continuity, without objectivity (or at least a simulation of it); we are weak and subjective, our pretence to power flapping in the wind (from the left and the right). Everything is meaningless without order, including your own labor and capital.
No.1437606
>>1437567
I'm loving the 18th century bullshit you're spouting.
I wonder when you're going to realize that it doesn't make any sense and is largely arbitrary.
No one's arguing against order or organization, you're failing to understand that there isn't one prescribed way to order society.
No.1437625
>>1437606
>nobody is arguing against order
Considering that lefypol is full of anarcho-memers, and that the basis of this thread that is being defended is an owner (who maintains order) being forcibly replaced by his workers (disorder), that's not even close to being correct. Besides that, the rest of your post is
>NOT AN ARGUMENT
No.1437630
>>1437625
>the owner represents order
This level of ideology shouldn't be possible
No.1437637
>>1437630
>the man who organises and employs the workers, who 'orders' the entire company to work, who officially owns and runs the factory, and is recognised by the authorities as the representative of the factory doesn't represent order.
Please tell me you're not serious
No.1437642
>>1437637
Aren't you the same guy autistically screeching about "natural laws" up and down this thread? So which is it, do natural laws and rules exist or are they all only maintained through enforcement?
No.1437652
No.1437656
>>1437377
>that picture
>the world produces enough food for 9.7 billion people
>the amount of food which is wasted by developed nations is the same that Sub-Saharan Africa produces
>21000 people still die every day because of hunger of hunger related causes
>but it's okay because if you're good at exploiting people and have a fuckton of luck, you can become rich and fuck some bitches then kill yourself (or continue your miserable life) :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
No.1437658
>>1437652
Hey look, a liberal hiding behind anonymity when his retarded position becomes untenable!
No.1437665
>>1437656
>niggers nig
>I'm supposed to feel sorry that their niggery nogs them of food
>meanwhile capitalist countries are suffering from obesity, becoming so exorbitantly wealthy that college kids want to throw it all away so they can larp as a communist to feel special
No.1437668
>>1437658
What's next, gonna call me a shill? A kike perhaps? wew horseshoe theory
No.1437677
>>1437668
Yup, it's the retarded liberal.
No.1437695
>>1437665
>they are only starving because their skin is black
Nothing unexcepted tbh. Btw do you know that 2/3 of the people on Earth who are starving live in Asia?
>meanwhile capitalist countries
>only the successful capitalist countries are capitalist
>wealthy that college kids want to throw it all away so they can larp as a communist to feel special
>capitalism doesn't work
i'm gonna just blame on the "communists" (because everyone knows that liberalism = communism)
No.1437697
>>1437677
yep, my position is untenable, which is exactly why you ignored all of my points and believe a conspiracy about me being 3 different people at once.
No.1437705
>>1437695
How can you hold all those assumptions made from my post with just two arms?
No.1437708
>>1437697
But if it wasn't you you haven't made any points, dipshit.
No.1437717
>>1437708
And how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?
No.1437722
No.1437728
>>1437722
I think you should have your parent take this test
https://psychology-tools.com/cast/
No.1437778
>>1437001
>let me just define for you what I mean by "earning"
and
>I'm just bitter to people who had goals and achieved them.
the post.
I mean, sure, capital attracts more capital… just like skill attracts more skill. If you're a hotshot carpenter (a part of the proletariat) people will come to you for offers, apprenticeship requests, to buy from you at a premium. Same thing with capital, or a good orator, a successful military unit will attract more members; Success breeds success and people like to be around success.
Hell, I own barely anything and STILL I realize how delusional it is to blame capitalism for everything.
No.1438160
No.1438168
>>1436946
>a porky talking about "risk" to a worker that already lost everything but he doesn't have another chance but suicide