>writer talks about being poor while living in a house like this
I lived in a modern version of this. But mostly dilapidated suburbs
>>24875543what do you expect him to do? move?
>>24875543I've spent almost my entire twenties drifting in and out of homelessness, living in squats, trap houses, and immigrant ghettos.I'm so tired of being poor bros.
>>24875689Stop treating your symptoms and get rid of the cause: capitalism
>>24875690no thanks I don't feel like starving to death
>>24875690But most of my problems have been caused by over a decade of progressive politicians and policies. I agree that (((some aspects of capitalism))) need to be removed but it's hard to get behind any leftist cause when they've proven themselves to be both completely ineffectual and also incapable of even the most basic self-criticisms.
>>24875689Sorry to hear that anon
>>24875689>>24875707Rand was unironically correct about the h*meless
>>24875689Did this extreme poverty inspire you to write anything worthwhile?
>His favourite author doesn't have his own fuck-off big mansion
>>24875697>>24875707You have Stockholm Syndrome
>>24875795That building is hideous
>>24875543That’s just what poor meant in London in the 50s. My grandfather, an FOB immigrant, was living in rooms like that in Chelsea and he was just a clockmaker’s apprentice. Nowadays you’d better be an investment banker to scrape by in that postcode
>>24875815>immigrantcongrats you and your lineage are why it costs that much to live in london now
>>24875543Looks like an average house in the Bronx here.
>>24875690Die commie
>>24875828I’m neither on public welfare nor a wealthy foreign international of the speculative class, so not really
take the rochester pill
>>24875864Simply being in the country youre taking away space and resources from Englishmen
>>24875690Please tell me more about our capitalist system of government guaranteed monopolies controlling the economy, essentially acting in symbiosis.
>>24875689I hear ya.>>24875690Easier said than done.>>24875772Kill yourself. >>24875834Just a reminder. Marxism is state-socialist capitalism. Lenin and the USSR was capitalist. They used capital, they collapsed their economy because of this.When we say we need to get rid of capitalism WE mean it. No one would starve or go homeless in a world free of this shitty elite's game.Another fun fact. Gold fetishism started because the ruling elites saw it as a medicine to consume. The knowledge slipped into the mist over time.
>>24876036>our capitalist system of governmentUm ackshully>monopolies controlling the economy, A stage of capitalism. Are you one of those people that like to say capitalism is only when it's working right for you? That will always lead to you buying your way into prominence and power and it stops working for the competition and they all call you out as a monopolist. "Who could blame me? It was all legal" It's a crap game. And the ancients pressed reset pretty frequently.
>>24876034Also known as “existence”
>>24875802I've vagabounded for years and you know what policy helped me the most in terms of ensuring basic dignity and quality of life? Water fountains.Every single public park in France has a hand pump that provides abundent access to clean drinkable water. I don't mean some shitty tinkle of a stream either, I mean an actual hand pump. In every single park.It meant I always had access to fresh water, was able to wash my clothes, drink, and bathe myself. Seems like a small thing, but when you have nothing it's the little things that make a big difference.Naturally I was curious who came up with this ingenious policy, so I looked into it. Was it François Mitterrand, longest serving president of France and leader of the French socialist party? No. Maybe it was François Hollande then, that champion of the poor and outcast? Guess again.It was Charles-Louis Napoléon Bonaparte, the weird crypto-fascist who Marx famously wrote an entire essay seething about. The man didn't have a socialist bone in his body, but he had the basic common sense to realize that poor people need water.You know what's never helped me? The useless, wasteful bureaucratic expenditures of every leftist party thats ever came into power. Not even once has my life been tangibly improved by' tax credits for employing racialized minorities' or 'safe injection sites to destigmatize drug users'. Actually, I can make a very strong case that these things have actively made my life worse. Significantly so.The problem I have with you people isn't that I don't think your heart is in the right place, it's that you're so arrogant and self rightous that you cannot even imagine the possibility that you are wrong. And actually, I don't think your heart is in the right place, I think at best you're a smug and condescending champaign socialist and more often than not an outright crook defrauding the public coiffers for your own benefit. Over a decade of left wing policies and the only thing that's been accomplished is creating a completely artificial middle class of foreigners and women who produce nothing of value for society. Trillions of dollars wasted with nothing to pay for it. And instead of entertaining the possibility that the mountains of criticism towards your policies might have something behind them, you double down with "no, the poor are just too uneducated to understand what's good for them-- we better import tax-payer funded foreign militias to keep these bigoted savages in line."Your politics suck and you do too.
>>24876695>anon wrote this whole essay>figure he must raise some good points since he wrote so much>the crux of his argument is a "crypto-facist" did one good thing once lol
>>24875543I suppose a man can have such a house and struggle to pay taxes and afford firewood
>>24876037Left communism will never come into power all you do is sit on your armchairs and complain.
>>24875697>>24875834>>24876695>>24876728People will work their entire lives away, working 20 years past retirement age with nothing to show for it, and still believe that the current system is best, that someday their children will be part of the rich in-group that benefits from capitalism.I find it's usually people from lower class upbringings that dismiss any socialist policies as "communism bad." Like how free buses will somehow ruin New York. The boot-licking programming runs deep. It's also wishful thinking: they say: "one day I'LL be the part of the one percent." No bitch, you won't -- you are too retarded. You and your family will always be wage slaves and the best you can do is demand fair compensation for your toil.
>>24876743> I find it's usually people from lower class upbringings that dismiss any socialist policies as "communism bad." Like how free buses will somehow ruin New York. The boot-licking programming runs deep.that's not the reason, though. the reason is they see those benefits make it easier for brown people, and as someone who used to unanimously agree with that sentiment and still kind of do, with caveats, anything that makes someone who isn't of my ethnic background have an easier life, is unanimously bad. A lot of its collateral damage, as I will state in my next collection of writings. sure, tax cuts and welfare cuts harm poor people but if it makes life harder for poor blacks or browns, whatever it takes. Its why western governments support greater Israel. sure, jews harm the west but displacing brown people is good for Europeans and European-descended peoples alike. the thing is, Marxists refuse to dig deeper than sociological reasoning for the way things are. class is somehow material reality but genetic race isn't.
>>24876743>People will work their entire lives away, working 20 years past retirement age with nothing to show for itAnyone working this long and nothing to show for it fucked themselves over so many times they deserve it. They can draw social security anytime and a 401k or Roth IRA (whatever respective thing is similar in your country) alone would give these people plenty enough to fuck around without a care in the world until death.If they didn't file their taxes or do any investment at all. It's their own fault. Not saying anyone and everyone can get rich in capitalism, but no one is barred from putting into the system to get something back out of it down the line. At some point you have to accept you made wrong choices.>they say: "one day I'LL be the part of the one percent."This is always so out of touch. I'm convinced you people who parrot this have lived in suburbs your whole life. Majority of them have no delusions about being the 1%. Go right now and ask 10 poor people, homeless, drug addicts, whoever, and ask them if they think one day they will be Jeff Bezos, you know damn well they don't.
>>24875689You're poor because you have a poverty mindset, not because you don't have money.
>>24876961He's got the "poverty mindset" because he is being subjected to poverty. He can't just get an under the table job sweeping out a barber shop and then invest that money to eventually get himself out of this loop. HE NEEDS TO EAT.
>>24875543Except two things:>usually these buildings were divided into small apartments>even into the 1970s and 1980s most of the big cities were extremely affordable
>>24876852>Anyone working this long and nothing to show for it fucked themselves over so many times they deserve itA civilized society that has been lifted out of the stone age should provide for even the stupidest people. It should be fool proof. Anything else is survival-of-the-fittest barbarism.
>>24876965Nope if you're still broke after 10 years it's either a life choice, a skill issue or a mental problem. For most it's just being stuck in a scarcity mindset.
>>24876695>bathe myselfSo you stripped naked in a public park, or what?
>>24875690YWNBAW
>>24876037Well, we won't ever know for sure how Lenin's Russia would have panned out since the civil war fucked everything over. Everything people criticise Lenin for is unironically a result of the harsher measures necessitated by the civil war. I doubt Stalin's USSR is what he envisioned.
>>24877033Not how that works. You are a smooth brained pampered fool or trolling perhaps.
>>24877061Lenin was a traitor to the people for derailing the revolution.
>>24877058>every example is from the stone age, with black and white picturesboring
>>24877058>Arguing with 100 year old counterrevolution>Third example is CIA propaganda >Fourth example glazes over the numerous Pinkerton murder spreesConclusion: State-capitalism is always bad. Centralized or "free market" aka oligarchic
>>24877061but he did create the state apparatus that stalin then expanded.the nep was original, but its reason was as strategic and duplicitous as the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (acquiring time). there is no reason to suppose that it would not be revoked later. lenin basically implemented the nep to avoid mass starvation, not because mass starvation is bad, but because it would kill his allies and strengthen his enemies, both on the left and on the right. it was a "we're gonna succumb economically and perish as a political project right now if we don't acquire time, so here's the NEP".he created the secret police. he enforced the one-party state (held in bondage to whatever Lenin decided - look at the NEP and the discussion about it, what it meant for socialism, how those who said that the NEP wasn't socialism were hounded and silenced, etc.). he admired the terror, robespierre. he was for class warfare. he was for state-sponsored terror. for executions without trial. for a state against which nobody was allowed to say a bad word.would a leninist soviet union differ from stalin's soviet union? not in its violence and widespread oppression.the only thing i don't see lenin doing that stalin did was killing his mates.
>>24877050It is public, after all. If they don't want nude hobos soaping up in the fountains then they should have made it private.
>>24876036Tell me, what is the natural result of a system that enables and encourages the concentration of obscene wealth (and wealth, in this system, is effectively power) into the hands of a few individuals?Do you really think those hyper-wealthy individuals or families will not use their wealth to influence, and eventually entirely control, the government?
>>24877121Sounds like the problem is the existence of a government that when taken over gives people unlimited power.
>>24877134No. The problem is that anybody is able to attain such wealth (and thus power) in the first place. Removing the government just removes one step of the process by which the wealthy gain absolute power over the poor.You are working under the assumption that the wealthy have any morals or principles beyond "acquire more money and power."
>>24877076Nope that's how it works. You are not a victim, sorry that's not convenient for your self-image.
>>24875690Yeah let me get right on that
>>24875682I mean, they don't have a right to live in their childhood homes
>>24877121you seem to be implying that unethical power is only wielded by the rich.what about power in china? in cuba? in the soviet union? in North Korea?The 100 richest men in America are not as formidable within their own nation as a single premier under Xi is within China, for example.I can protest against Musk, Bezos, and so on. I can vote for someone who openly says that his policies will hound Musk and ransack his wealth.I can't do so against Xi and his mates. Some X account with fewer than 500 followers wrote that Musk is a paedo and posted it, and received at least 300k likes.And there is a difference between wealth acquired by market processes - Musk is in fact the owner of a business that satiates whatever needs the customers have - and wealth acquired by advantagens given by the State (china's billionaires).It really is obscene the idea that you can attack property rights and live freely and in an at least reasonably prosperous nation.What you leftists really want, what really moves you, is the destruction of the wealthy, not the betterment of the poor. This is why you're still fond of policies that have systematically brought about mass impoverishment and authoritarianism.Look at Venezuela. What has and is happening over there doesn't bother you because what you really crave has happened: the private sector has been annihilated. The State stands supreme.
>>24877206"i deplore the venezuelan tragedy, yet i am for the policies that generated it""i don't like scarcity of goods, but i want price controls"."i want investment, yet i want to tax the life out of profits and earnings""i want high paid jobs, yet i want businesses to be hounded by every law and regulation my ilk can imagine"
>>24875682I think he expects them not to write about being poor.
Anti-capitalism is anti-American.
>>24877206>what about power in china? in cuba? in the soviet union? in North Korea?The powerful in these countries enjoy/enjoyed wealth and living standards far in excess of the general population.>The 100 richest men in America are not as formidable within their own nation as a single premier under Xi is within China, for example.>I can protest against Musk, Bezos, and so on. I can vote for someone who openly says that his policies will hound Musk and ransack his wealth.>I can't do so against Xi and his mates. You can SAY things but you can't actually DO anything. The moment you even start to come close to taking any kind of action is when the feds destroy you.>Some X account with fewer than 500 followers wrote that Musk is a paedo and posted it, and received at least 300k likes.And nothing changed.>And there is a difference between wealth acquired by market processes - Musk is in fact the owner of a business that satiates whatever needs the customers have - and wealth acquired by advantagens given by the State (china's billionaires).Satiating the needs of customers shouldn't grant you more wealth than entire nations.>It really is obscene the idea that you can attack property rights and live freely and in an at least reasonably prosperous nation.What's obscene is the fact that I will never be able to own property - such as a home - because the wealthy and the policies they support have made it impossible to afford.The wealthy actually DO NOT want normal people to be able to own property. They want us to be forced to rent everything in perpetuity. They want us to eat bugs and live in pods. They want us to own nothing, and be happy.>What you leftists really want, what really moves you, is the destruction of the wealthy, not the betterment of the poor. This is why you're still fond of policies that have systematically brought about mass impoverishment and authoritarianism.The betterment of the poor and the destruction of the wealthy are deeply intertwined.>Look at Venezuela. What has and is happening over there doesn't bother you because what you really crave has happened: the private sector has been annihilated. The State stands supreme.I don't care about what's happening in Venezuela because I'm not from fucking Venezuela. Venezuela is functionally the same as every other shithole in South America.
>>24877050I filled up a water jug, took it to a house I was squatting in, and gave myself a sponge bath there.>>24876743Does New York have free buses? It doesn't??? It has a pilot program testing out a handful of routes at times of the day that exclude all the morning and night traffic??? I'm all for free healthcare, housing, buses, and everything else. But what I've actually seen is a lot of embezzlement, entitlement programs that are designed to fail, and attitudes towards racial aparthide that should have died out a century ago.
>>24876743free buses just means that the city has given up on enforcing fares and let criminals take over. busses will just become homeless camps on wheels. if ur rich like mamdani and never took a bus in ur life that probably sounds great, but for working nyers who actually have to use the bus to get to work, this is awful.
>>24877583As someone who used to pay a decent chunk of change for a monthly train pass (to work), free public transport would have made a big difference. But I guess you can dismiss any social benefit by saying niggers will ruin it, if you are disingenuous enough.
>>24877595i grew up in an area where the local colleges sponsored free busses around the county during the spring and fall semesters. it was great. guess the demographics of that area. in nyc, they will ruin it, unfortunately.
>>24877595NTAthe city im in there are effectively free trains because there are platforms with no barriers. guess where all the homeless people enter the train from? they get on with heaps of trash, lice infested blankets, and smoke crack until the train reaches the last stop and they get kicked off.
>>24877206I've said it before and I'll say it again, the issue is rent seeking. What nobody is willing to talk about is that it's not some unaccountable billionaire class (there are a lot of problems with these people, I wont deny it), it's the system itself. The largest single government expense in most western countries is old age benefits. Social Security makes up a full quarter of the US expenditures. This is a program that, while noble, creates very little added value and artificially leverages the state to support the old and established over the young and emerging.The housing crisis wasn't created by billionaires (although exploited by blackrock). It was created by multiple entire generations of city councilmen and the need by the federal government to ensure constant wealth transfer to their largest voting block (baby boomers).The worst excess of povery don't have anything to do with billionaires, they have to do with the niggardly attitudes of the common man, many of whom are visible in this thread, who need someone to suffer so that they can feel more important. It's not billionaires who are most opposed to things like free transit for the poor, it's people like >>24877583 who is probably a solidly middle class wage slave. The eternal house negro seething at the thought of seeing field negros happy. The solution is brutal utalitarianism. I would personally hand out business liscences like candy, suspend ID requirements to start bank accounts, and abolish minimum wage. Things like free public transit are a no-brainer, it's a direct subsudy to industry and allows the easy flow of goods and services in society. Singapore and China have had much success abolishing home ownership and repleasing it with lend-lease from the state to their own citizens (maybe leftists should start talking about getting rid of foreign ownership of homes). Anti-trust lawsuits are capitalism done right. When the government can simply select who wins and who looses in a society, that's the death of all innovation and hard work. We need market solutions to everything.
>>24875690>the cause: capitalism[Citation Needed]>>24876037>They used capital, they collapsed their economy because of this.[Citation Needed]>No one would starve or go homeless in a world free of this shitty elite's game.[Citation Needed]>Gold fetishism started because the ruling elites saw it as a medicine to consumeDemonstrably false.>>24876047>A stage of capitalism[Citation Needed]>It's a crap game. And the ancients pressed reset pretty frequently.[Citation Needed]>>24876743>People will work their entire lives away ... someday their children will be part of the rich in-group that benefits from capitalism.Unironically yes, capitalism has uplifted an extremely large number of people and has demonstrably led to a reduction in worldwide poverty, the growth of the middle class, and the growth of the bourgeois. Even Marx acknowledges the power of Capital: >The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors">...>The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. >The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West. >...>The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.Most people don't think they will be part of the 1%. It is enough that they have better conditions than almost all of pre-capitalist society and the possibility, the chance, to do even better.As with any pseudointellectual with swathes of ideologically motivated conjuectural claims without substance (I would doubt you have ever read a book and these obvious mistakes come from ChatGPT) your posts are worthless. Try again, cite your claims, and formulate an argument that isn't based on a straw man.
The problem with modern politics is that I, a NEET, simply do not respect people who work. I don't respect right wing wagies who get up every day to cuck out for eight hours a day for schlomo while resenting the homeless schizo smoking crack on the train. I don't respect the left with wagies get up every day to cuck out for eight hours a day for moneybags while resenting the rich entrepeneurs who's services they are addicted to consuming. Contrary to what >>24876743 seems to think, I /do/ in fact have more in common with the 1% than I do with these suck-ass wage slaves. Why? Because I wake up and do whatever I want. If I lack shelter, I will simply break into a house and squat. If I need food, I steal it. If I need clothes, I steal it. I have more in common with Timurlane and John D. Rockefeller and Benjamin Franklin than I do with any buck broken wage slave who actually wastes their entire life working for someone else and simmering about it. Actually even the 1% I don't really respect since they usually have jobs. I mean, look at Elon Musks hairline from when he was a wagie. Gross.The only real and worthwhile distinction in society is that of Aristotles natural slaves. You either set your own goals in life or you don't. No amount of wealth or ideology will ever change the essential fact that 95% of men are cattle.>>24877612I love watching fags like you seethe while you're going to your shitty wageslave McCareer.
>>24875543for me it's>degenerate mercenary whoregoers who snort coke and fuck child prostitutes every day and literally suck Jew dick for a gig preach to me about true love and integrityI am glad you made this discovery OP, I wish I had made it far earlier than I did
>>24876743>>24877626Now I will explain something else for you. Marx has a problem with the system of exploitation and sees in the industrial mode of production a means to move past traditional class hierarchy motivated by capital. He admits that there are certain "stop gap" solutions to be found in reform, but that these will always be inherently exploitative. Capitalism of to-day has created an immense body of uplifted people whose material conditions are objectively better than much of history. No doubt it has also led to the breakdown of certain class relations and especially the reduction of all people from all strata of society into purely undifferentiated human capital, a very degrading and inherently exploitative system—BUT even for those so exploited, their material conditions are AGAIN objectively better than (much of) history and the risks associated with violent revolution and the social system of communism can itself be inherently unappealing. MANY proletarians died fighting for what would eventually become "state capitalism" as you might call it, why should any nowadays so risk death when Capital offers them a piecemeal solution to survival, enjoyment, and the possibility of future success?This problem was expounded upon by Stirner who I will hopefully quote soon (if you don't drag me into a pointless internet debate that centers on your ignorance and me repeatedly correcting these mistakes, again, pointlessly as you are so ignorant you have no reference point for correct or incorrect knowledge).
>>24877626>It is enough that they have better conditions than almost all of pre-capitalist society and the possibility, the chance, to do even better.it's a good thing no one is asking for a conversion to soviet style communism
>>24877595You know what's way cheaper and efficient than free public transport? a free bullet in the head if you don't pay the fucking ticket or shit up the journey for other travelers with your nigger music on the loudspeakerhonestly we just need to upgrade cops to 2000AD Judges
>>24877641that doesn't sound cheap or efficient at all
>>24876743>We are freeborn men, and wherever we look we see ourselves made servants of egoists! Are we therefore to become egoists too? Heaven forbid! we want rather to make egoists impossible! We want to make them all "ragamuffins"; all of us must have nothing, that "all may have.">So say the Socialists.>Who is this person that you call "All"?—It is "society"!—But is it corporeal, then?—Weare its body!—You? Why, you are not a body yourselves;—you, sir, are corporeal to be sure, you too, and you, but you all together are only bodies, not a body. Accordingly the united society may indeed have bodies at its service, but no one body of its own. Like the "nation" of the politicians, it will turn out to be nothing but a "spirit," its body only semblance....>Our freedom from another's person still lacks the freedom from what the other's person can command, from what he has in his personal power,—in short, from "personal property." Let us then do away withpersonal property. Let no one have anything any longer, let every one be a—ragamuffin. Let property beimpersonal, let it belong to—society.>Before the supremeruler, the solecommander, we had all become equal, equal persons,i. e.nullities.>Before the supremeproprietorwe all become equal—ragamuffins. For the present, one is still in another's estimation a "ragamuffin," a "have-nothing"; but then this estimation ceases. We are all ragamuffins together, and as the aggregate of Communistic society we might call ourselves a "ragamuffin crew.">When the proletarian shall really have founded his purposed "society" in which the interval between rich and poor is to be removed, then hewill bea ragamuffin, for then he will feel that it amounts to something to be a ragamuffin, and might lift "Ragamuffin" to be an honorable form of address, just as the Revolution did with the word "Citizen." Ragamuffin is his ideal; we are all to become ragamuffins....>This is the second robbery of the "personal" in the interest of "humanity." Neither command nor property is left to the individual; the State took the former, society the latter....>As the Communists first declare free activity to be man's essence, they, like all work-day dispositions, need a Sunday; like all material endeavors, they need a God, an uplifting and edification alongside their witless "labor."For the great many people, communism offers very little that another, perhaps more oppressive ruler does not. Communism offers the subjugation of one's property to the "common good," and whether this is less exploitative for most does not matter when they are expected to fight, suffer, and die for an outcome that historically is not guaranteed and which very likely they may never see. They are expected to fight for YOUR ideology, YOUR religion, they must come under the yoke of YOUR god for your moral beliefs about labor and exploitation. For many, this is simply irrational.
>>24876961This.>>24875689Just don't be poor (and you won't be poor)
>>24877076There's no trolling. People born into affluence normally lack empathy so he literally cannot conceive of anybody else experiencing different circumstances than he/she.
>>24876743>>24877639>>24877729(Ignore the formatting errors in the ppst ending in 29)Now the simple fact is that capitalism survives because it really does offer enough for the majority to be satisfied, or if not satisfied, resolved to modestly improve his means through political reform and hard work. It isn't any more bootlicking for someone to seek a solution which is nearly guaranteed to keep him alive longer than most humans in history, have his needs met, have the majority of his wants met, and to have the promise of better things, than it is to hear a communist shout from his gated suburb or ivory tower college:>Workers of the world unite! Fight and die for our cause! Perhaps a hundred, no, two hundred, even three hundred years into the future, you and your children will live modestly better than now!—and no rich people will exist to skim the cream of your labor!>Fight Comrades! Fight for the future!Yeah. He's going to take the job, bread, and circus. This is not servility, he simply refuses to serve YOU.
>>24875689Are you an immigrant? If so, fuck off back to your own country. If not, you got my sympathies.
>>24877633i work a handful of hours a week and i get to sleep in a nice apartment and i wake up in my bed next to my girlfriend and i get to buy things and go on trips. but your crackhead thing sounds cool too.
>>24877791>Are you an immigrant? If so, fuck off back to your own country.What this anon says, adding that you should kill yourself once you've fucked off to your shithole
>>24877633NEETdom is a deathcult idea not only because it relies on infinite handouts from the state that hates you and wants to replace you with third world immigrants, but because it gives unremarkable people the notion they are aristocratic simply for rejecting the virtues of the working world.
>>24875689become a burglar and murderer.
>>24877189>You jes gotta beliebe! LOL
>>24877626>They used capital, they collapsed their economy because of this.The USSR had ECONOMIC troubles as they dissolved. The final capitulation was a Yeltsin coup or something. But the economic troubles started this. Check wiki and any history books>No one would starve or go homeless in a world free of this shitty elite's game.There is enough materials and food to house and feed every single human being on Earth. The reason people go hungry and homeless are ECONOMIC barriers that invent scarcities that aren't real.>Gold fetishism started because the ruling elites saw it as a medicine to consumehttps://www.youtube.com/@ormusgold2387>Demonstrably false.Citation missing. Your theory is of course that they thought it was pretty. And that seems to have been the case for most elites (and underlings such as yourself) not in the Know, but the history tells a different and stranger story.>A stage of capitalismJesus Fucking a Horse Christ. Capitalism observed has gone through various stages. You can't deny it. Read Fernand Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism, to start!>It's a crap game. And the ancients pressed reset pretty frequently.Greaber's Debt and Hudson's Forgive Them Their Debts.Happy reading. >>24877735And then the poor man who realizes he just needs to be as psychopathic as the rich man goes out and steals, hustles, even kills to get ahead. He is branded a criminal (as you would imagine) and barely ever gets to that high a status. What, mob boss? Are you endorsing gangs and crime families, anon?
>>24878061okay
>>24877641That doesn't make it cheaper for me because I still have to pay for the transit, dumbfuck. You have completely fallen for the psyop. "WE CAN'T MAKE ANYTHING BETTER BECAUSE IT MIGHT BENEFIT LE NIGGERS!!!!!!!"
>>24875543I actually work with the poor day in, day out as part of my job (I’m part of a government program designed to aid them), and aside from the elderly or the odd person that got fucked over by the welfare system, most poor people I deal with are low IQ junkies who keep spiralling and refuse to improve their situation.It really challenges the romanticised image of the poor you see in fiction when you realise that a large percentage of poor people are entirely to blame for their own situation.
>>24876961this but unironically
>>24879450>I actually work with the poor day in, day out as part of my job (I’m part of a government program designed to aid them), and aside from the elderly or the odd person that got fucked over by the welfare system, most poor people I deal with are low IQ junkies who keep spiralling and refuse to improve their situation.true. the fact of the matter is, most people, and my most I mean 95% of them (those on whom one cannot foist such negative remarks rise fast), are incompetent and lack ambition. they're unable, or unwilling, to go beyond what is required of them.when i articulate this i am often told that society doesn't reward effort. this has a certain degree of truth to it, but it also true that without effort you won't go anywhere.just show some bloody initiative, ffs. do more than what is required of you. and be sure that those in charge are aware of it.and know who's in charge.
>>24879450You sound like Theodore Dalrymple
>>24880130one other thing: it's shocking how easy and naturally a great deal of people mismanage their money.i know people who have borrowed money to buy tvs and smartphones, things they could've purchased without resorting to credit if only they did some planning and waited 6 months.on the other hand, i know people whose only "extravagant" purchases are funded solely by doing more than what their contract demands (extra hours, etc.).
>>24879450>Welfare nigger arrogantly insisting that /his/ extravagant government handouts are well deserved and the result of his ability, effort, and worth; but those other people getting a fraction of what he gets from the state, they are filthy, ignorant, and detestable
>>24880138>Theodore Dalrymple (né Anthony Malcolm Daniels) was born in Kensington, London.[5] His father was a Communist businessman of Russian Jewish descent,[6] while his Jewish mother was born in Germany.[7] Shocking.>>24880130>and know who's in charge.My house-nigger theory of the mind is once again validated. Are you people even capable of envisioning a life that doesn't revolve around grovelling submission to your "superiors" and arrogant contempt for those you deem beneath you?
>>24880207meant for >>24880141
>>24878447>The USSR had ECONOMIC troubles as they dissolved. The final capitulation was a Yeltsin coup or something. But the economic troubles started this. Check wiki and any history booksNo. This is not a citation or an argument. The USSR collapsing because of "economic troubles" does not mean it collapsed because it was capitalist or because it used "capital" any more than saying the USA or West Germany thrived because it did use capital.>There is enough materials and food to house and feed every single human being on Earth. The reason people go hungry and homeless are ECONOMIC barriers that invent scarcities that aren't real.Not an argument either. I'm sorry you have some sort of intellectual disability but you still have to try to use your brain. Just because there is an excess supply of one good under one system does not entail that this supply of goods will persist, that distribution will be as efficient or more so, or that people will not starve for another reason inherent to another economic system. You don't know that, nor do you have any sources, because you are an illiterate pseud.>"https://www.youtube.com/@ormusgold2387"This is not a source, this is a random conspiracy channel that also does not properly source its claims. Gold was valuable very, very early in history, and it was not because of medicine; If the citation is missing, where did you get the information from? Good feels in your little tummy? Crummy youtube channels and a little wink that you're... "in the know"? Give me a break.>Jesus Fucking a Horse Christ. Capitalism observed has gone through various stagesMonopolistic control exists both outside of capitalism and within it. Monopolization is not an inherent stage of capitalism in the same way you could say a backslide into totalitarian Stalinism and State Capitalism is not a stage of communist revolution. It is one possibility from a certain set of policies within a system. The framing of capitalism into these stages is narrative play on Marx's, "Braudel's", and your part.*>>24878447>Greaber's Debt and Hudson's Forgive Them Their Debts.This is not a citation that proves "the elites" have been resetting the system of monopolies throughout history. You are pulling random books that ChatGPT gives you to try to back up your claims:>>24875689>I'm poor>>24875690>get rid of the cause: capitalism>>24876036>state enforced monopolies are not capitalism>>24876047>Your amusing postNo, the "crap game" of capitalism hasn't been reset repeatedly. You only see two competing groups of powers, with debt cancellation reasonably used by the elites to prevent feudal land from failing. Not a reset of the economic system and not state enforced capitalism.I'll explain why you shouldn't take a ChatGPT recommendation and reddit top comment as your source of information, especially not when you receive visions and are "in the know" about something with "missing citations." (kek)
>>24878447>>24880574As an overt example, pages 321-322 of Hudson's book has the pictured passage, which cites W.F. Albright's "The Archeology of Palestine" for the preceding claims (ostensibly, since neither Gottwald nor Ginzberg back them up) yet Albright's only includes that one sentence>(From the 1964 ed.) Among them are: a simple dualistic phraseology, contrasting good and evil, light and darkness, truth and falsehood; the opposition of the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of PerversityYet nothing backs up the historical claims within. The rest of this particular passage is interpretive history that crosses the bridge into speculative history, and this can be said for most of the book and many of its completely spurious claims.As I mentioned earlier (by the asterisk) this is a form of Marxist mythology, which you may have heard of in the form of "historical materialism" or the later Barthes (who critiques it). The actual historical struggles, economies, and competing cultures are pseudo-historically interpreted to be part of a very modern narrative conflict. This is only your (and other pseud's) narrative, but it has nothing to do with the reality of history. Whenever I see Marxist historicism, I always enjoy letting it be storm-blown by Benjamin's Angel:>The puppet called “historical materialism” is always supposed to win. It can do this with no further ado against any opponent, so long as it employs the services of theology, which as everyone knows is small and ugly and must be kept out of sight.>...>Just as flowers turn their heads towards the sun, so too does that which has been turn, by virtue of a secret kind of heliotropism, towards the sun which is dawning in the sky of history. To this most inconspicuous of all transformations the historical materialist must pay heed.>...>[...] what he surveys as the cultural heritage is part and parcel of a lineage which he cannot contemplate without horror. It owes its existence not only to the toil of the great geniuses, who created it, but also to the nameless drudgery of its contemporaries. There has never been a document of culture, which is not simultaneously one of barbarism. And just as it is itself not free from barbarism, neither is it free from the process of transmission, in which it falls from one set of hands into another. The historical materialist thus moves as far away from this as measurably possible. He regards it as his task to brush history against the grain.The narrative that Marxists imagine is only the founding mythos of their religious ideology, where the inconvenient is removed by means of Historicism. The books you quote aren't free of this, and my complaints upon reading Hudson's and looking into Graeber's are repeated. Graeber's wikipage lists a landslide of failures, which I will include in the next post.Marxists MUST behave this way, and MUST unwind history into a single, convenient and ahistorical thread upon which they may project their mythology.
>>24878447>>24880574>>24880581>Economist Julio Huato, associate professor of economics atSt. Francis College, writing inScience & Societycited some of the book's contradictions, such as Graeber's claim in p. 21, that money and debt appeared simultaneously, and his claim in p. 40, that money and debt did not appear simultaneously and that debt appeared first.>Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, a professor of economics atSan Jose State Universityand an adjunct scholar at the American libertarian think-tankCato Institute, found several "serious conceptual confusions" in the book. For example, Hummel said that Graeber likely confused theAustrian schooleconomistCarl Mengerwith his son, the mathematicianKarl Menger, which led to erroneous statements and accusations against the former, such as that he supposedly added "variousmathematical equations" to economics and that he came up with the term "transaction costs". Hummel also contended that the book's tone is overly polemical and that it is "riddled with errors and distortions". EconomistGeorge Selgin, aprofessor emeritusof economics at theTerry College of Businessat theUGA and a fellow at the Cato Institute, echoed similar criticisms, adding that Graeber had not read Menger at all, and that his reading ofAdam Smithwas ungenerous. According to Selgin, the foundation upon which Graeber's evaluation ofmodern economicsandcommercial societyrests is severely flawed.Even other socialists note that Graeber's is mostly just a narrative story.>The book was reviewed by way of a debate in the socialist magazine Jacobin. In the first review, economist Mike Beggs, a lecturer in political economy at the University of Sydney, wrote that while "there is a lot of fantastic material in there", he "found the main arguments wholly unconvincing ... Graeber is a wonderful storyteller. But the accumulation of anecdotes does not add up to an explanation, and certainly not one that would overturn the existing wisdom on the subject, conventional or otherwise"It's no surprise that you would share these as your only "sources" alongside a Youtube channel with bangers like "ORGANIC CURE FOR CANCER? Natural Holistic Treatment Cure MONATOMIC GOLD 1of13". I feel as though I'm arguing with a child so I'll lay off the (rightful) insults, but seriously, hop off /lit/ and read, since you're only getting your information from Youtube, reddit comments, and ChatGPT bad summaries of the few books you've heard other redditors mention. This isn't working in your favor.(Pic related is the image I forgot for this >>24880581 )
>>24875543This day I finally found a word for my political ideology - I call it classocialism - socialism with social classes. The difference between classocialism and the current system is that in classocialism, capitalists have no influence. Not who has the most money, but who has the most skill is influential in society. The poor get less shitted on because capitalists have no influence (there's still rich people but they do not consider themselves capitalists).
>>24880581And here's Albright's The Archeology of Palestine, page 249 where the sourced quotation from Hudson's book appears (difference is likely due to a different print edition). Funnily enough I had read this one, but I don't remember much of it. Skimming the relevant chapters doesn't lend any credence to Hudson's intellectual honesty, who is just writing spurious claims and tacking on a random quote from a random source to lend the rest of the unsourced claims an air of authority.I have the text from Ginzberg as well, which doesn't cover the topic at all.
>>24880574>No, the "crap game" of capitalism hasn't been reset repeatedlyDebts. Specifically. >Chat GPTNo. Don't use it. I'm being quick and vague for these short pithy remarks on this piddly board.Your pissy little hair splitting changes nothing>NO. You can't cite history.Russia was state centralized capitalist. It is all capital when using capital.>USA and West GermanyAnd why is China doing so well? It's all just capitalism >More pissy retarded dick wagging>Sources? Sources are not sources I will consider! Put it back in your straitjacket, boy. Go back and read the sources now.
>>24880628>Debts. Specifically.No, that is not the argument. If you want to say you were only making comment on debts alone in your initial post, then it was irrelevant bullshit that doesn't refute capitalism. Debt is not only independent of money, it also existed prior to the institution of capitalism as we know it. You are either sticking your tail between your legs and scampering off now or you raised up a strawman irrelevant to the discussion of capitalism here: >>2487604 In both cases, you look like an imbecile.>No. Don't use it. I'm being quick and vague for these short pithy remarks on this piddly board.>Your pissy little hair splitting changes nothingIf you aren't getting your hallucinations from ChatGPT, then it doesn't bode well for your apparently very limited intelligence. There is no "hairsplitting," you are receiving direct refutations for your claims. If you don't like reading, don't have intellect, can't properly cite your sources, and raise YOUTUBE channels about "organic mono-atomic gold cures for cancer" as your legendary citation, then why post on /lit/? You are WAY out of your depth here.>Russia was state centralized capitalist. It is all capital when using capital.This is an example of you just not being very bright. I wasn't making a case about the economic system of Russia, (whether communist or capitalist it doesn't matter) the argument centers on the fact that its collapse cannot be attributed to capital any more than its use of industrial technology, government, wheat, or hammers. Capital cannot be the reason for its collapse, otherwise all countries would have collapsed from the use of capital.This leads in to your bizarre points:>And why is China doing so well? It's all just capitalismThis is irrelevant, why do you think I am making an argument that Russia collapsed because it was communist/capitalist? You in way out of your depth here.>Put it back in your straitjacket, boy. Go back and read the sources now.Look. You say you're "in the know" on sources that are "missing" from the historical record and pointed me to a wackadoodle youtube channel. This is not a hill you want to die of projection on.Go take a nap. You look sad and pathetic.
did you all forget the board you're in
>>24876961NTA but true. I'm broke because when I get money I spend it all on beer and books or on treating my gf and then spend the rest of the month suffering. I have no notion of finacial stoicism.
>>24875543looks normal to me
>>24880664>CHINA? Don't look there! Ignore that!You argue stupidly. This doesn't BODE well for your mind. Hope you can get some quality psychiatric help.
>>24880951I am not ignoring China. China succeeded either in spite of using capital (your "argument" is that the USSR failed because of economic trouble caused by capitalism, and this is a counterexample, whether you want to call China communist, capitalist, market socialist, or state capitalist) or it was a sucessful socialist/communist nation. In either case, this does not change the fact that your argument does not work because it does not substantiate the claim that the USSR collapsed because it made use of capital.Now stop projecting this weird mental problem of yours onto me, you've mentioned straitjackets, my penis, and now this need for a psychiatrist. I'm beginning to think Freud was right about something.
>>24881053DO you not know why the Chinese are making things work out for them? Are you under the impression they think their success is permanent? >it does not substantiate the claim that the USSR collapsed because it made use of capital.Still imagining things of course. Clear and true statements bloated into things I never said.Idiot.
>>24881072>Still imagining things of course. Clear and true statements bloated into things I never said.>>24876037>Just a reminder. Marxism is state-socialist capitalism. Lenin and the USSR was capitalist. They used capital, they collapsed their economy because of this.I am going to be very frank with you: You have no intellectual potential whatsoever. You have no potential. Take a break from the internet and do something else. It's not the end of the world, this just isn't the kind of activity you were born for.Now to address your final defense,>DO you not know why the Chinese are making things work out for them? Are you under the impression they think their success is permanent?This is again not relevant. We are discussing the USSR. Calling China into question only means that you have given me an example of what you call capitalism working successfully. Yes, I know that—I know capitalism has been extremely successful almost everywhere it has ever been tried. Whether China is capitalist, communist, or King Kongist, it does not substantiate any of your claims. If anything, it only helps me by making you look even more retarded by providing another example that within your very own worldview helps me. This is why I am telling you that you are an obvious and unequivocal imbecile.
>>24881085Why does an economy collapse?
>>24881085>The Soviet Union collapsed from economic reasons>Offers no alternative>Essay's worth of word vomit circling around the issueAre you trying to say that state controlled capitalism isn't TRUE capitalism? Is that your ONLY point? Everyone repeats that. Just say that ChatGPTer
>>24880808Part of the problem is that people don't understand that these are just the symptoms.
>>24881088If your new argument is that an economy can only collapse by using capital, that is a very funny one indeed. This is like saying someone can only die if they are alive, so they died because they are alive; you are digging yourself a grave so deep that no words can get you out.I'll begin by saying an economy doesn't actually need a system of monetary exchange to function—barter economies are an example, but an economy itself is just an abstract representation of the flow of goods within a given system. If your little socialist utopia doesn't have any flow of goods, then yes you could say it is completely "dead" and thus can no longer "die." People die because of various issues in the regulation of their organs, nutrition, energy, so on and so forth. If someone dies, we don't say they died because they were yet living. We say they died because they lost too much blood, because their liver failed and their body filled with toxins, or because they starved. When economies collapse, we can't attribute it to the fact that they had an economy, or that it "transferred goods by means of capital."Even if you want to say "capitalism is a malady" like heart disease, this doesn't work because capitalism exists as a state of being for a given economic system of exchange. It is not in itself a reason for death or collapse, and should you compare it to a disease, how must this disease necessarily kill? I can always pull out examples of successful capitalist economies; these do not demonstrate capitalism is IMMORTAL but that the condition for collapse in the USSR was not necessarily capital.>>24881120>Are you trying to say that state controlled capitalism isn't TRUE capitalism? Is that your ONLY point? Everyone repeats that. Just say that ChatGPTerNo, I am not saying state controlled capitalism is not true capitalism. Are you retarded? I am saying the distinction does not matter. Do you want it to be capitalism? Sure! Then China is an example of capitalism that succeeded. USSR is an example of capitalism that failed. But attributing it to capitalism is not enough, becauss of the very reasons I stated earlier.>offers no alternativeI am explicitly offering an alternative. I am saying it did not collapse because of capital and gave you direct and explicit examples where capitalism did not collapse an economy given the same timeframe (USA and to a lesser extent West Germany, now you beg me to include China). This is the alternative to your argument: Capital did not cause its collapse.I apologize if, on the /lit/ board, a post that is less than 3000 characters is too much for you. Being born with an intellectual disability like yours must be a struggle, so don't take it the wrong way when I say this board is for books and reading, and you should have the aptitude to read at the very least.
>>24881088>>24881180Also if you aren't this >>24881120 imbecile then I apologize, my response is in the context of their ongoing attempt to say the USSR collapsed explicitly because they used capital.>They used capital, they collapsed their economy because of this.And to make this analogy clear:> your new argument is that an economy can only collapse by using capital, that is a very funny one indeed. This is like saying someone can only die if they are alive, so they died because they are alive;Capitalism is a state of being, monetary capital being the representation of the operation of a capitalist economy. Thus if there is no capital, the economy is dead. A counterargument could be:>An economy which is not based on capitalism would not be dead if...Sure, I admit that. But since we are discussing the USSR, we are only debating its economic form and the manner of its collapse. My only argument is that "use of capital" is not sufficient.
>>24875543Who is the writer?
>>24876961Must be 18 to post here
>>24876961Please learn grammar before posting in this thread again. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
>>24883111Okay ESL.
>>24881194Money=capitalAll this bloviating and you don't understand a fucking word? If pride was blubber you'd be a 800lbs-er
>>24883745Hey, I'm actually 1900lbs and 800 of those are from the massive hydrocephalic brain that is currently raping you.Marx's Capital, chapter X:>capital has one single life impulse, the tendency to create value and surplus-value, to make its constant factor, the means of production, absorb the greatest possible amount of surplus-labour.>Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks. The time during which the labourer works, is the time during which the capitalist consumes the labour-power he has purchased of him.>If the labourer consumes his disposable time for himself, he robs the capitalist.>The capitalist then takes his stand on the law of the exchange of commodities. He, like all other buyers, seeks to get the greatest possible benefit out of the use-value of his commodity. Suddenly the voice of the labourer, which had been stifled in the storm and stress of the process of production, rises:>The commodity that I have sold to you differs from the crowd of other commodities, in that its use creates value, and a value greater than its own. That is why you bought it. That which on your side appears a spontaneous expansion of capital, is on mine extra expenditure of labour-power.Wikipedia:>Marxists view capital as a social relation reproduced by the continuous expenditure ofwage labour. Labour and capital are viewed as historically specificforms of social relations.You disagree with Marxism? What about:>In economics, capital goods or capital are "those durable produced goods that are in turn used as productive inputs for further production" of goods and services. A typical example is the machinery used in afactory. At the macroeconomic level, "the nation'scapital stockincludes buildings, equipment, software, and inventories during a given year.">Capital is a broad economic concept representing produced assets used as inputs for further production or generating income.Not only that, your "refutation" is irrelevant because the way I used it does include monetary capital:>Financial capital(also simply known ascapitalorequityinfinance, accounting and economics) is any economic resourcemeasured in terms of money used by entrepreneurs andbusinessesto buy what they need to make their products or to provide their services to the sector of the economy upon which their operation is based.I.e., the capital is just the way to represent value (to Marx, labor-value) so that it can be transacted and stored.This is the stage where you make desperate attempts to save face in front of a crowd of imaginary redditors. You are amusing me greatly, but yes it looks quite pathetic. You are wrong according to Communism, wrong according to Marxism, wrong according to my argument, and wrong by any definition. Very pathetic indeed, and quite hilarious.Try again or ask for a hint.
>>24883829ChatGPT, everybody! Give him a hand.
>>24883850Writing and quoting sources is such a Herculean task for you that you assume it must be ChatGPT? Not surprising considering you cited "ORGANIC CURE FOR CANCER? Natural Holistic Treatment Cure MONATOMIC GOLD 1of13.mpeg" as a source.You have failed again and again, and now without any way to defend your point you have to cry out in desperation to an imaginary crowd. When you make such blatantly, even hilariously false statements with such confidence, literally nothing from then on can salvage your argument. Go back and refute the post or just take a break and realize this is just an anonymous basket weaving forum, nothing to experience ego shattering stress over.
>>24878061Sure, we've all thought about it, but how much money am I actually gonna make doing that? I like my life too much to go to prison.
communists love writing entire essays because it lets them delude themselves about communism being an actual serious beliefjust do communism thenno excusesjust do it
>>24875804so are you, bitch!
>>24875543>average poor person house before the managerial class took over
>>24883975smarter criminals all work online these days. and offshore, almost nobody can touch them.
>>24884229keep in mind the following which is often disregarded: not every communist is a deluded cunt.some of them are fond of what communism entails.a mistake most right-wingers of the classical liberal sort make is thinking that every communist out there would change is mind if he lived under communism.some people really are okay with living under authoritarian conditions. some people do yearn for the stability that some authoritarian governments are able to provide.stability has more fans than liberty. liberty is actually a belief only authentically held by a minority. everywhere people yearn for things that restrict liberty.and what is liberty without stability? not much.look at what is going on, electorally, in germany, particularly in what used to be east germany. remember, read about it, what happened after EG was swallowed by WG. people in the east complained about rationing, the stasi, and so on, yet years later, when those negative things were no longer in place, they looked back fondly at certain things EG provided: healthcare, childcare, etc.an even better case: russia in the final years of boris yeltsin, in which the man, once spoken about as if he were a saint by at least 2/3 of russians, had to tamper with the 1996 election, aided by the west (i am a western fundamentalist, mind, a fanatic apologist for it being the best ever, but it's hilarious how intelection interference isn't always evil), or he would've lost the elections to the communists. why? because the fall of communism was an utter mess. nobody can say that a small chunk of bread today is not better than a massive loaf which nobody can buy because inflation has spirallled out of control.look at venezuela. the transition will be painful. every transition is painful, really. it's a bit like when someone, be him or her fat or skinny and aiming to become something else, embarks on journey to change his ways.i apologise if the following example is a wee bit too crude, but the skirmish between the tranquility of a reasonably functional authoritarian state and the capitalist state which flirts every five years with a crisis (bear in mind that a captalist crisis seldom entails more than 15% unemployment, whereas a crisis in a socialist state is about chucking at least 2/3 of the population into the direst form of poverty) is a bit like that sports fan who can't bear the emotional stress of backing a team that always reaches the important stages of a season; he'd rather play one important match, lose it, and then forget the whole thing.
>>24884810>some people really are okay with living under authoritarian conditions. some people do yearn for the stability that some authoritarian governments are able to provide.Moron you're living under the exact same shit except without the stability.
>>24883087Must have ovaries to call yourself a woman
>>24884279Go on...
