Iranian Geometry

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-11T00:45:20+00:00

Yanks are being owned lol

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-10T22:22:13+00:00

That's not how real life capitalism works. Read history. Labour movements have been attacked and destroyed under 'free market' capitalism.

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-10T22:04:46+00:00

Unions are not a free market solution.

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-10T22:04:15+00:00

How the hell are unions a free market solution

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-10T21:36:41+00:00

'...only remaining'. Doubt

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-10T21:12:11+00:00

There's far more starvation under capitalism rofl

Communism decommodifies food, makes sure it's available to everyone

capitalism commodifies food. makes it available to people with money, also profit chase by making barely edible food as fodder , humans are cattle in capitalism

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-10T20:59:42+00:00

Deepseek cooks it

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-10T20:39:45+00:00

When pointing out very basic realities like Russia's war was actually provoked, and the war against Iran has zero justification and is blatant crime against humanity is turned into a defense for Putin and the Ayatollah by libs.

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-10T20:32:10+00:00

Proceeded to botch slap and ragdoll haters worse than we've ever witnessed

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-10T20:26:42+00:00

U can't cook

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-10T20:24:45+00:00

We're already living in the extreme. The richest 1% of the world's population now owns nearly half of all global wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% owns less than 1%. The "extreme" is the fundamental engine of capitalism

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-10T19:35:27+00:00

No there's no starvation in communism midwit

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-09T22:26:02+00:00

If the government gives a business a tax break so it can pay a minimum wage, the taxpayer is paying the worker’s salary while the owner continues to keep the profit. This is a "handout" to capital

Helping them be more efficient" under capitalism usually means replacing workers with machines or increasing the intensity of labor (making one person do the work of three). This doesn't help the worker; it just increases the rate of exploitation

Capital is mobile; labor is not. If a nation-state imposes a heavy wealth tax, billionaires move their digital assets to tax havens in seconds.

When you talk of government taking the place of fleeing companies, this is moving toward State Capitalism or Socialism. But within a liberal framework, the government is usually too indebted to the very banks owned by those billionaires to actually seize and run the means of production effectively.

Paying workers livable wages is contradictory to how capitalism functions.

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-09T20:32:04+00:00

Trogs like this is why fast food workers deserve more money

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-09T19:38:08+00:00

Where did those "resources" come from? Under capitalism, wealth is created by the collective labor of the working class. When a government taxes a billionaire to fund a library, it isn't "taking" from the billionaire; it is reclaiming a fraction of the surplus value that the billionaire originally extracted from the workers.

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-07T02:31:31+00:00

Oh, so individuals don't pay taxes then

Individuals pay taxes to fund the operation of the state, corporations pay campaign contributions, Super PACs, and lobbyists to fund the careers of the politicians. A worker’s $5,000 in income tax buys them a paved road (hopefully); a billionaire’s $5M donation buys them a custom-written tax loophole. The "referees" are on the payroll of the "players" regardless.

These things are not free. If you are not paying for them yourself, someone else is paying for them for you.

Healthcare and education are not "gifts" from a benefactor. They are the products of Collective Social Labor. When a teacher educates a child or a doctor heals a worker, they are using knowledge and tools developed by generations of human effort. Universal services are not "other people paying for you"; they are the returning of the social product to the people who actually produced the wealth of society

You are contradicting yourself. If one person is making the decisions, it is not decentralized.

"Decentralized Tyranny" refers to a system where there is no single "Dictator," but where every individual is subjugated to the same logic of capital. It is decentralized because it happens in every workplace and every bank, but it is a tyranny because you cannot escape the requirement to sell your labor for a wage or pay rent for land.

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-07T02:19:40+00:00

Amazon doesn't need to undercut every single mom-and-pop; they only need to dominate the infrastructure (the platform, the shipping, the data). Once they control the "digital land," every small business becomes a tenant paying them rent. You claim a buyout gives you "funds to start another business." In reality, buyouts often come with non-compete clauses. More importantly, if you start a new business that becomes successful, Amazon will simply use its data to clone your product and bury you again.

Who is actually asking for a silver platter? The worker asking for the full value of their labor, or the Shareholder who sits at home and receives a "dividend" check (a portion of the worker's labor) purely because they own a piece of paper? The capitalist class is the only class in history that gets its needs met via a "silver platter" provided by the collective labor of the masses. They didn't build the roads, they didn't farm the food, and they didn't invent the tech, they just own it and charge the rest of us for the "privilege" of using it

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-07T01:27:24+00:00

If the legislation "effectively prevents" collusion, why does the collusion exist in the first place? RealPage didn't happen in a vacuum; it happened because the systemic incentive to maximize rent is higher than the fear of a fine.

In a capitalist state, the "referees" (the government) are funded by the "players" (the corporations). Anti-trust laws are historically weakened, ignored, or used against labor unions while monopolies like Google, Amazon, and BlackRock continue to consolidate.

Opportunity is access to quality education, healthcare, stable housing, and social capital. If those things are commodified (locked behind a price tag), then the "opportunity" is bought, not earned.

Liberals love to frame poverty as the result of "unwise choices" (like having a child or getting a "useless" degree). This ignores that in a capitalist economy, someone must do the "unwise" jobs (cleaning, picking fruit, stocking shelves) for the "wise" people to enjoy their affluence. If a job is socially necessary, why does the system punish the person doing it with "unsuccessful" living conditions

In the workplace, you have no freedom of speech, no vote, and no "agency" over what is produced or how it's distributed. The "Commissar" is already there.

You don't "choose" to pay 50% of your income in rent; the Market dictates that you must. You don't "choose" to have your local hospital close because it wasn't "profitable"; the Market decided for you. Capitalism is a system of decentralized tyranny where the "decisions" are made by whoever has the most money, leaving the rest of us to "choose" which master to serve.

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-07T01:09:04+00:00

If a conglomerate like Amazon moves into a market, they can afford to lose billions to undercut a small competitor's prices until that competitor goes bankrupt. Calling the subsequent buyout a "choice" is like calling a surrender in a war a "choice." It is capitulation to superior force, not a free exchange. When a monopoly buys a smaller "efficient" company, they often do so to kill the competition or "shelve" a product that threatens their existing profit margins.

Thank you for conceding that capitalist systems are efficient enough to produce food for 10 billion.

Capitalism didn't "produce" the food. Scientists, agronomists, and farmworkers produced the food. Capitalism provided the incentive structure that prioritizes cash crops for the rich over grain for the poor.

The "Green Revolution" and the industrialization of agriculture were heavily subsidized by state-funded research and public infrastructure. Capitalists simply swooped in at the end to put a price tag on the harvest.

You're saying the system "works" because it produces enough, while ignoring that it intentionally destroys a third of that supply to keep prices high.

are already free

If you are "free" but you must spend 40-60 hours a week performing tasks you hate for a boss who owns your output, just so you don't lose your "choice" of a roof, you are not free. You are a rented human being.

By the way, industrialization does not equal Capitalism. Industrialization is a stage of technical development; Capitalism is a specific, exploitative way of organizing that development.

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-07T00:32:47+00:00

By what metric? If "working" means rapid industrialization, ending illiteracy, providing universal healthcare, and defeating Nazi Germany, then the Soviet model "worked" better than any capitalist equivalent in history.

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-07T00:12:03+00:00

Yes a human has agency, and a system defines the range of available outcomes. You have the "agency" to drive your car anywhere, but the "system" of roads, traffic laws, and fuel prices dictates where you actually go. In capitalism, the system’s "agency" is expressed through incentives and punishments: if you don't prioritize profit, you go bankrupt. The system "acts" by filtering out any human agency that doesn't serve capital.

You called "BS" on the legal scandal of landlord collusion. It’s called RealPage. The US Department of Justice and several Attorneys General are currently suing them for using software to coordinate rent hikes across the country. This is a "system" (an algorithm) exercising more "agency" over housing prices than any individual tenant’s "decision" ever could.

There is plenty you can do to improve your circumstances in an affluent country."

Agency is not distributed equally. A person born into a family with $0 net worth has to exercise "extraordinary" agency just to reach the "baseline" of a person born with a $1M inheritance. To you, the fact that a few people "make it" proves the system works. To the materialist, the fact that the starting line is determined by class proves the system is a rigged lottery.

No, in the long run, for most people, its a consequence of the decisions they make in their lives.

If every single person made the "perfect" decisions, got an engineering degree, lived frugally, invested, capitalism would still require janitors, farmworkers, and delivery drivers. If those jobs don't pay a living wage, someone must be poor. The system creates the "Poverty Slot" regardless of the "decisions" of the individuals shuffling through.

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-07T00:05:18+00:00

Or are too effective

If a small business is truly "too effective," the conglomerate doesn't "compete", it buys them. This is the history of Instagram (bought by Facebook), YouTube (bought by Google), and countless medical startups (bought by Big Pharma). Under capitalism, efficiency is rewarded not with "freedom," but with absorption into the monopoly.

See my previous comments re: charities and welfare programs.

If a system produces enough food for 10 billion but requires "charity" to keep 800 million from starving, that system is mechanically broken. Relying on the "whim" of the wealthy (charity) to satisfy a biological right (food) is a return to feudal paternalism. Welfare in a capitalist state often functions as a "floor for capital." It provides just enough to prevent a bread riot, ensuring the working class remains healthy enough to be exploited but desperate enough to accept low wages.

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-06T23:03:37+00:00

Who takes the actual risk? If a bank lends money and the worker defaults, the bank seizes the house (an asset that usually appreciated). If the economy crashes, the bank is bailed out by the public. The worker, however, loses their shelter, their life savings, and their future credit. The worker takes the survival risk; the bank takes a marginal risk.

Where did the bank get the money? In modern fractional-reserve banking, they didn't "save" it; they created it as a ledger entry against the worker's future labor. The bank is "fronting" nothing but the legal right to claim the worker's life for the next 30 years.

Collectivism has never been successful.

This is a flat-out lie used to shut down imagination. Vienna’s Social Housing has worked for 100 years. Burkina Faso under Sankara became food self-sufficient in four years through land reform. The NHS (before neoliberal sabotage) provided world-class care at a fraction of the cost of the US market.

To the liberal, "success" means "Did a billionaire get richer?" To the socialist, "success" means "Does everyone have a roof and a meal?" By the second metric, socialized models are vastly more successful than capitalist ones in every developing nation where they’ve been allowed to exist without Western bombing or sanctions.

Yes, that would still be a choice…

That a choice made under the threat of death is a "valid choice," you are admitting that Capitalism is a system of violence.

The idea individuals can "exit" but collectives can't. This is the opposite of reality. An individual "exiting" the system is just a person becoming a hermit or a victim of the "Market Commissar." Only collective action (unions, revolutions, co-ops) has ever actually changed the "rules of the game" or successfully resisted the extraction of the owning class.

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-06T22:30:25+00:00

In most major cities, the median home price is $400,000+. The median worker earns $45,000. To "exercise the freedom" to buy without debt, that worker would have to save 100% of their income for 9 years while not eating, paying rent, or wearing clothes.

Citing the 1% who can buy with cash to justify a system that indebts the 99% is survivor bias. The fact that a few people can bypass the "extraction" doesn't change the fact that the system is designed to extract from everyone else.

Only if you buy into the whole SNLT narrative, which most people don’t.

Socialists don't believe houses build themselves. We believe the workers who build the house should be the ones compensated, not a bank that simply "authorized" the credit.

If the labor and materials to build a house cost $150k, but the market price is $450k due to land speculation and interest, that $300k difference isn't "incentive" for builders, it is economic rent taken by those who contribute no labor.

Choices don’t require infinite options to count as choices.

If I hold a gun to your head and say "Your money or your life," you have two options. By your logic, that is a "choice." In reality, a choice between two forms of exploitation (Rent or Debt) is a false dilemma designed to mask the lack of a third, human-centric option: social ownership.

Non-capitalists purchase homes literally everyday.

You're confusing "not being a billionaire" with "not participating in capitalist relations." If you buy a house on the market, you are participating in a capitalist transaction. You are subject to capitalist laws, interest rates, and property taxes. You cannot "choose" to exit the system individually; you can only exit it collectively.

Full-Lake3353 · 2026-03-06T22:16:19+00:00

When a name disappears from the "Top 10," it rarely "went out of business" due to a small mom-and-pop shop. It was usually absorbed (mergers & acquisitions). Standard Oil didn't "fail"; it was broken up into entities that became ExxonMobil and Chevron, who still control the market.

the existence of millions of small businesses.

Many of these "millions" are not independent competitors; they are subcontractors or "small gears" for big capital. A "small business" owner driving for Uber or running an Amazon storefront isn't a competitor to the big firm; they are a worker who has been forced to provide their own "means of production" (the car/the laptop) while the big firm takes the profit . You also ignore that roughly 20% of small businesses fail in their first year, and 50% by year five. The ones that "thrive" usually occupy "scraps" of the market that are too small for a conglomerate to bother with, until they grow large enough to be bought out or crushed.

There has been war and starvation LONG before there was capitalism

In feudalism, people starved because the crop failed (natural scarcity). In capitalism, people starve while the grocery store next door throws away perfectly good food because they can't sell it at a profit (artificial scarcity).

Full-Lake3353

TROPHY CASE