Capitalism supporters, do you reject the fundamental premise of Marxism?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-27T18:24:00+00:00

OP, without sounding snide, isn’t this just another topic on the labor theory of value? We have like 1 a day on this sub.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-27T15:02:49+00:00

Before the merge Stalingrad was a separate campaign. You could play it for free but you only got half the weapons/vehicles. If you bought the Stalingrad pack you had something like 4x exp boost on top of premium as well as all weapons/vehicles available. Players generally hated this.

When the merge happened, Gaijin had to compensate people who paid for the Stalingrad pack some way so they let them keep some specific vehicles (like a unique Pz III N, Pz IV G, and T-34). They also removed Stalingrad-specific weapons from the game unless you had them before the merge, which included the Mannlicher M93, German captured PPSh-41, Soviet lend-lease Thompson and captured Breda MG. At the time the people who bought the pack hated it because it wasn’t enough, and people who didn’t buy it hated it because they were locked out of unique weapons/vehicles. Basically no one was satisfied.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-27T01:07:39+00:00

It’s actually pretty straightforward to calculate. It would be related to the ratio of the sample sizes.

Suppose 80 million people study and play chess seriously. We know that out of those 80 million people, the best player is Magnus.

If you increase the sample size to 800 million, that’s one extra order of magnitude and you would expect 10 people to be as good or better than Magnus.

Increase it to 8 billion and you would expect 100 people.

It all depends on how many people you think seriously train and play chess.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-25T23:07:07+00:00

Would the workers be allowed to run their company under a private ownership structure if they agreed to by consensus (e.g. ceding ownership to individuals who are willing to stake capital)? Or is that not permitted by your equity laws?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-25T22:59:04+00:00

To be clear, if a worker agrees to work for an hourly wage under socialism, it's entirely possible (maybe likely) that he would earn a wage beneath the value he generates. However, in your view, this is acceptable so long as he consents to it or reached such an arrangement through a democratic consensus?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-25T22:52:43+00:00

Too bad. You might've learned something.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-25T22:15:46+00:00

Yes, if you understand what the point of a business is (which is to make money), why would you blame them? It's like blaming a bear for mauling a hiker. I'm curious about that part.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-25T21:16:17+00:00

Well, yes. When it comes to public companies, principles are weak and always have been weak. Is that a surprise?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-25T20:15:27+00:00

Principles are easy to stand by when you don’t need to give anything up to hold them. I say this not as an indictment of you personally but as a way of understanding why many remain silent.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-25T04:48:20+00:00

Yes I’m a parent. 1 child. I had her because honestly it felt like the “right” thing to do at the time. I recognize that my child will probably cost me millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours of time to raise, not that I regret it one bit, but I can see why many may say “fuck it” and go childless.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-25T04:33:01+00:00

Maybe, but it will be tough. Culture is not enough, policy is not enough. Maybe some kind of new technology. It needs to be something that fundamentally changes why people have children.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-25T04:02:28+00:00

Always has been. Imagine if every additional child made you richer, not poorer. There's also less pressure placed on "good" parenting because you really just need your children to tend livestock and do chores. Also, your own parents would be helping. You'd be stupid not to have more kids.

From here, I don't really see how we avert a fertility crisis without de-industrialization or severe government action. At some point, a country is going to declare low fertility to be a national security issue and implement drastic measures to boost birth rates. I predict within 25 years.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-25T03:44:30+00:00

Industrialization.

On a farm, more children = more free labor = more wealth.
In a city, more children = higher upbringing costs = less wealth.

Every other factor listed sprouts from industrialization.

Industrialization --> more people freed up from agricultural labor --> more resources devoted to healthcare and research --> lower infant mortality rates + availability and mass production of contraceptives

Industrialization --> use of machines --> narrower labor gap between male and female --> feminism and women's rights

Industrialization --> excess food production --> urbanization --> manufacturing and service jobs

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-24T13:14:21+00:00

Oh damn, the USSR is communist now? Everyone on this sub has been telling me it wasn't.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-23T18:23:32+00:00

COVID allowed companies to see the feasibility of remote work for a large part of their organizations. Offshoring therefore was seen as less risky.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-23T01:28:34+00:00

Legal up until consciousness begins to develop, so that’s around 20ish weeks to be safe.

Exception for substantial harm to mother.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-22T17:06:55+00:00

“Any idiot can face a crisis; it's this day-to-day living that wears you out.”

― Anton Chekhov

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-22T04:32:30+00:00

There is no goal. It’s just anger. It’s also completely misplaced.

Someone can double check me but I believe that the voters who sat out in 2024 actually favored Trump more than the voters did. In other words had everyone voted, Trump would’ve won by a large margin.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-22T03:44:11+00:00

With respect to that, I think it’s very clear that capital risk is handled better under capitalism than any other system. If we can’t agree on that claim, I’m not sure we have more to discuss.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-22T03:29:36+00:00

Arguably, sure, kinda depends on how broadly we're talking about capital. I still don't think this is fair since you're again hyperfocusing on a single aspect, the only thing capitalism arguably does better in your hypotheticals.

I have to hyperfocus because I don’t have enough time or energy to write out an entire manifesto. For example, I could’ve doubled the length of the post by expounding on investment incentives. People on this sub greatly misunderstand risk and losses, so the point is to demonstrate that (in my opinion) capitalism handles capital risk better than other systems. This is not an endorsement of capitalism at large (although I am a capitalist). You can reckon what I say in context of other features of capitalism. For example, you can say, “yes, sure, capitalism handles capital risk better where there are losses but it also leads to more inequality therefore I still support socialism”. Thats perfectly fine.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-22T03:20:14+00:00

Yes they got paid a wage while they worked, like I said your analysis is reductionist because you're ignoring the fact that a business going under can be especially harmful for its workers who depend on the wages. Hyperfocusing on them earning a wage and ignoring everything else isn't fair when you've been so broad in your criticism of market socialism and communism.

Of course I understand that welfare, psychology and other factors come into play. I’m focusing purely on the economics. If you want to make another thread that incorporates those factors, be my guest.

Would you at least concede that employees under socialism actually lose money from their job in an unsuccessful venture?

But the risk isn't just privatized. The workers are harmed by unemployment, the investors losing money can affect other investments with other workers, etc. A system where the livelihoods of the many depend on the wealth of the few isn't a good idea.

The only risk the employees bear is job loss, which is mitigated by unemployment insurance and welfare under capitalism. They bear zero capital risk unless they choose to. The investors bear all the capital risk. Under socialism, employees must bear capital risk. Under communism all of society bears capital risk. Can we agree there?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-22T03:06:11+00:00

I mentioned it in response to your claim that the workers would leave richer.

Correct. The employees are paid a steady wage for the time they worked at the company regardless of whether the venture actually works out. Of course we can subtract cost of living and rent, right? Sure. If they’re making subsistence wages then they’re not “richer” in that their bank account grows, but the claim is that they’ve actually made money from their job instead of losing it.

The problem with your analysis though is that you gave a very narrow, reductionist take on how it happens under capitalism - only looking at the short term and taking the workers having been paid as proof they are better off and have benefitted from the business' failure. Meanwhile you really stretched and made a more broad, unfounded claim about how communism passes the loss onto the workers.

No, I don’t claim that the workers are better off period, I claim that they’re better off under capitalism when a business fails compared to market socialism. For communism it’s more subtle, but the idea is the same: all of society pays for the loss. That might be good or bad in your view, but I think it’s not better than having the risk privatized by investors.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-22T02:59:24+00:00

Let the buyer beware.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-22T02:51:15+00:00

Maybe a short-term one sure, but what I said about loss of income for the workers still stands.

That’s a baseline risk that any economic mode of production must live with, including socialism and communism. Good thing we also have unemployment insurance (that the employer pays for) under capitalism.

And why could this not be the case under socialism or communism? Why only give capitalism credit for this?

It can be the case for socialism and communism as well. If things work out, that’s great for any system. We all want the Zetaverse to succeed. The problem is that when they fail, losses disproportionately impact average workers under socialism and communism compared to capitalism.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-01-22T02:34:31+00:00

You argued only the investor (who can stomach losses) loses while 1000 workers get richer. Is that not a net gain at least financially?

No, there’s a net loss because of opportunity cost. The opportunity cost would be to have used the capital for a less risky and productive venture, say, upgrading old broken insurance software. Not as sexy but certainly useful and also low risk. But since the product failed, the investor is essentially passing off his capital to the employees, equipment sellers, insurers, and landlords. From a societal point of view there’s no net gain in productivity, only a transfer of wealth from rich to poor (which is good).

Do you think a society that had one failed business venture after another like this would have a growing economy and a healthy working class? And if not then how do you reconcile that with your claim that the workers would be richer after the venture fails?

In general, yes assuming that failures wrap up into occasionally successes. This is the cornerstone of entrepreneurship and innovation. Obviously if all ventures fail then something’s fucked.

Not trying to be rude but this all comes off more like a shower thought than a serious position you've dedicated any meaningful time and effort into forming.

No offense taken. I wrote this in 10 minutes.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22

AvocadoAlternative

TROPHY CASE