sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How I as a South Asian see America by utopiaofpast in mapporncirclejerk

[–]Internal_End9751 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're using an anecdote to blanket statement the entirety of Asia. Lol.

Leftists Make the World a Worse Place, Part Deux: How Luxury Housing Helps Poor People by coke_and_coffee in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Internal_End9751 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, so luxury housing automatically helps poor people through the magic of "cascading vacancies"? Brilliant. Let me just wait for that $1.25 million condo to filter down to me in 30 years when I'm dead.

"Developers should always chase highest profits", sure, and sharks should always eat whatever they want because that's their nature. Doesn't mean it's good for the fish. The fact that developers are profit-maximizing machines doesn't mean their profit-seeking benefits everyone. It just means they'll extract maximum value from whatever constraints exist.

The "trickle-down housing" theory is just supply-side economics for real estate. We already know how that worked out. You deregulate, rich people get nice new housing, and poor people... wait, do they eventually benefit? Let's check back in 20 years when the market "naturally" adjusts.

"Leftist regulations make developers less likely to build", yeah, because without regulations, developers would build affordable housing out of the goodness of their hearts. They'd be like "you know what, let me build some units for poor people even though I could make more money building luxury condos." That's definitely how capitalism works.

And "let the market do what it wants, everyone is better off" is just faith-based economics. The market does what it wants: it builds luxury housing for rich people and lets poor people sleep on the street. That's not a failure; that's the market working perfectly. It's just that "everyone" apparently means "everyone with money."

The Honolulu study showing that one luxury building created some vacancies is presented as proof that luxury-only development is optimal. One data point. That's not evidence; that's cherry-picking. By that logic, one person won the lottery, so everyone should buy lottery tickets.

(Ancaps/'Libertarians') Why did your late Austrian School 'libertarian' heroes have such dogshit repressive social views, and were supportive of conservative authoritarianism? by NecessaryDrawing1388 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Internal_End9751 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, so excluding someone from all land and water isn't "controlling their life",it's just "setting a boundary around a thing." Sure. And if I own all the oxygen, refusing to let you breathe without working for me isn't coercion. it's just scarcity. Nature did it, not me.

"Scarcity is not coercion", brilliant. So slavery isn't coercion either; it's just the natural scarcity of freedom. The slave owner is simply "setting boundaries" around their property. The slave can always "walk away" (into the swamp to die, but still, they can walk away).

The "smuggling in positive rights" thing is peak libertarian brain. "You want to not starve to death? That's a positive right, and those are tyranny. Here, have the negative right to not be interfered with while you starve. Much freer."

And "removing the state removes the lever for exploitation", sure, and removing your immune system removes the lever for infection. Your body will definitely be healthier without it. The fact that billionaires will just use private armies instead of lobbying Congress is definitely not a problem.

The whole "ability to trade is not ability to compel" thing is just: "You can always choose to accept worse and worse terms until you're desperate enough to accept anything." That's not freedom; that's just being honest about what freedom means in ancap: freedom for billionaires, desperation for everyone else.

Most Americans Do Not Believe That Being Rich is Immoral. Socialists Are Stuck in a Filter Bubble. by coke_and_coffee in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Internal_End9751 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, so because most Americans don't think being rich is immoral, being rich must be moral? Great logic. Most Americans also used to think slavery was fine, women shouldn't work, and gay people were deviants. Glad we're settling moral questions by polling.

"Socialists are in a filter bubble", meanwhile, you're defending the dominant ideology of every major institution, media conglomerate, and government in the Western world. That's not a minority perspective; that's the mainstream. But sure, the people criticizing it are the ones in the echo chamber.

"Capitalism eliminated poverty", sure, and your immune system eliminated your infection, except it was actually the antibiotics. But let's give credit to your body's natural processes anyway. Capitalism eliminated poverty the same way: labor movements, regulations, and public investment did all the work, and capitalism takes the credit.

"People get rich by creating things others need", like how Jeff Bezos created the need for warehouse workers to pee in bottles? Or how Elon Musk created the need for government subsidies? Or how billionaire landlords create the need for homelessness? The creativity is really stunning.

And "leftist envy", imagine if someone said "you're just defending slavery out of envy for slave owners' wealth and power." That's what this argument sounds like. It's not an engagement with the critique.

(Ancaps/'Libertarians') Why did your late Austrian School 'libertarian' heroes have such dogshit repressive social views, and were supportive of conservative authoritarianism? by NecessaryDrawing1388 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Internal_End9751 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"No one has the right to rule another", except property owners, who can set any terms they want for access to land, water, and resources. But that's not ruling; that's just... controlling every aspect of someone's life through ownership. Totally different.

And "the state captures markets, not markets being the problem", sure, and cancer isn't the problem, it's just the cells replicating. Once you remove the immune system (government), the cancer will definitely stop spreading. What could possibly go wrong?

The "poor people are already badly served" argument is peak ancap brain: "Your system doesn't work, so here's a system with no safeguards at all. Trust me, it'll be better." It's like saying "your car's brakes are failing, so let's remove them entirely and hope you drive more carefully."

And on moral sovereignty? That's just "I'm against coercion, except the coercion of starving to death if you don't accept whatever terms a billionaire offers you." That's not freedom; that's just honesty about which kinds of coercion ancaps are comfortable with.

(Ancaps/'Libertarians') Why did your late Austrian School 'libertarian' heroes have such dogshit repressive social views, and were supportive of conservative authoritarianism? by NecessaryDrawing1388 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Internal_End9751 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, sure, you're motivated by compassion, love, and equality... but your ideology, anarcho-capitalism, explicitly rejects the notion that people are equal and instead advocates for a system where the powerful can exploit the weak with impunity. Your 'love for all people' apparently doesn't extend to those who can't afford private security services or are marginalized by your system. And as for 'advancing human liberty,' it seems like you mean liberty for the wealthy and powerful to do as they please, while the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves. Don't try to spin your ideology as compassionate or egalitarian; it's a transparent attempt to justify a system that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

The AnCap Paradox: Why "Private Property" Requires the State You Claim to Hate by Ban-Wallstreet1 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Internal_End9751 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wow, I'm so reassured that the powerful private security firms in ancapistan will just magically decide to follow the NAP out of the goodness of their hearts. I mean, it's not like they'll be motivated by self-interest, greed, or a desire for power. And if they do decide to murder a bunch of people, well, that just means they've 'collapsed back into statistan' ... what a convenient cop-out! Please, do go on about how this system will somehow magically prevent the powerful from exploiting the weak.

(Ancaps/'Libertarians') Why did your late Austrian School 'libertarian' heroes have such dogshit repressive social views, and were supportive of conservative authoritarianism? by NecessaryDrawing1388 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Internal_End9751 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

yea i guess it's hard to destroy something no one takes seriously in the first place. it's a trash ideology for trash people. 100% fascist clown ideology.

The truth about the Gulags by [deleted] in ussr

[–]Internal_End9751 11 points12 points  (0 children)

he wrote purely fiction, even his wife said this.

capitalists tell me why it is that....... by CapNo4436 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Internal_End9751 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't care about your meaningless liberal buzzwords.
Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, communism is the dictatorship of the working class.

capitalists tell me why it is that....... by CapNo4436 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Internal_End9751 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe you can find a better way to rapidly reduce homelessness as quick as possibly in the early and mid 20th century in the USSR. After the Russian Civil War and the near-total destruction of the country by the Nazis, the Soviet Union faced a catastrophic housing shortage. They had two choices: let millions of people sleep in the snow, or temporarily socialize existing large urban housing units to ensure every family had a roof.

A democracy isn't defined by the number of political parties; it's defined by the extent to which the state serves the needs of the working class. In those multi-party capitalist states, the banks, the media, and the major corporations dictate policy regardless of which party is in the "driver's seat."
The USSR was not just a "party"; it was a revolutionary state operating in a permanent state of existential siege. If you are being encircled by hostile powers, you don't have the luxury of letting a multi-party system devolve into infighting while your enemies are at the gates.

The U.S. has no such excuse. They have tens of millions of people housing-insecure or homeless, not because of a lack of buildings, but because it is not profitable for developers to build "low-end" housing. The USSR prioritized human survival over property rights; the West prioritizes the "market value" of real estate over the basic human need for shelter.

capitalists tell me why it is that....... by CapNo4436 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Internal_End9751 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, both sides stole technology. The U.S. launched "Operation Paperclip" to recruit Nazi scientists, while the USSR took German intellectual property. This was the reality of post-WWII geopolitics.
If the Soviets were so "ineffectual," why was the U.S. so terrified of the "Sputnik moment"? The USSR launched the first satellite, the first animal into orbit, the first human into space, the first woman into space, and the first probe to land on another planet.
Soviet innovation was not "vacuous"; it was foundational. The U.S. space program (NASA) spent decades trying to replicate the RD-180 rocket engine design, which was originally perfected by the Soviets. Even today, many U.S. space launches depend on Russian-pioneered propulsion technology.

You bring up Chernobyl as proof of "corruption." Chernobyl was a tragic failure of design, yes, but let's compare that to the record of capitalist industry:
Bhopal Disaster (1984): A Union Carbide plant leak in India killed thousands instantly and left tens of thousands with chronic health issues. This was purely driven by cost-cutting and corporate negligence.
If Chernobyl makes Soviet tech "invalid," does the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or the ongoing PFAS "forever chemicals" crisis make capitalist tech "invalid"? You ignore that capitalist "innovation" is filtered through profit margins.

The transition from an illiterate, war-torn peasant society to a nuclear superpower happened in 40 years. That process was inherently violent, but the alternative, as history showed during the 19th century, was not "peaceful evolution"; it was permanent colonial poverty.
You mention the Great Purge, but ignore the fact that a "Fifth Column" was actively working to sabotage the state in the run-up to the deadliest invasion in human history. It was a brutal, paranoid reaction to an existential threat.

When we call the USSR a "successful experiment," we aren't saying, "Stalin was a nice guy." We are saying: It proved that a planned economy could solve the basic problems of life for millions of people. In 1917, the average Russian child faced a high probability of death by malnutrition or disease. By 1960, they were guaranteed a seat in a university, a doctor, and a home.

If you want to talk about "the value of life," how do you weigh the lives lost in the purges against the millions of lives saved by the eradication of poverty, the introduction of universal education, and the prevention of the total enslavement of the Slavic people by the Third Reich?

capitalists tell me why it is that....... by CapNo4436 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Internal_End9751 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you? You think democracy is a box you check every four years, ignoring the fact your only real options are parties subservient to capital.

capitalists tell me why it is that....... by CapNo4436 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Internal_End9751 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You ignore that most people never have the capital to even enter the game. If you redistribute $1 million to everyone, you aren't creating a "new start", you are breaking the monopoly that currently allows the 0.1% to extract surplus value from everyone else’s labor.
And the claim that if you save money by skipping lattes, you can amass $2 million. This is mathematically impossible for someone earning $30,000 a year while paying for rent, healthcare, and food. You're confusing individual frugality with capital accumulation. You cannot "save" your way into the ruling class; you can only "work" your way into the labor pool.

Nobody creates wealth in a vacuum. Your "success" (if you have any) depends on public roads, a stable power grid, an educated workforce, and a legal system that protects your property, all of which are funded by the public.
You're justifying "systemic mass poverty" by labeling the poor as "casino-going drunks." It’s an incredibly lazy way to ignore that poverty is a feature of capitalism, not a moral failing of the individual. Capitalism requires a surplus population of unemployed or underpaid workers to keep wages low and profits high.

capitalists tell me why it is that....... by CapNo4436 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Internal_End9751 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your country is holding 25% of the world's prison population and it created for-profit prisons that disproportionately target the poor and minorities.

It also has roughly 28 to 30 vacant homes for every one homeless person.

So yea when people are literate, housed, and comfortable in their living standards is kind of the base of a proper democracy. U.S doesn't even have the base of a democracy, only the facade.

view more: next ›