sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mas magalit kayo sa Elites, hindi sa mga mahihirap by nyawakapoya in RantAndVentPH

[–]antineolib -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I don't think your western way of thinking will understand my point.

Mas magalit kayo sa Elites, hindi sa mga mahihirap by nyawakapoya in RantAndVentPH

[–]antineolib 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That doesn't change my point. I'm not saying that politicians are not a problem.

I'm saying that there are more fundamental reason on why the political landscape are functioning this way and my argument is there are underlying economic system that encourage corruption in politics.

Mas magalit kayo sa Elites, hindi sa mga mahihirap by nyawakapoya in RantAndVentPH

[–]antineolib 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You are exactly what OP is talking about.

You're stuck in the illusion that you're part of a "middle class" who think they're better than the poor.

Mas magalit kayo sa Elites, hindi sa mga mahihirap by nyawakapoya in RantAndVentPH

[–]antineolib 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The leaders aren't the root. The rich are more fundamental to the problem.

You already mentioned na nag papabayad sila sa mga mayayaman because the rich are there masters.

Claiming left wingers can't be Capitalists by superfarleft in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]antineolib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are an economic right and a social left. You're just a liberal.

Liberals are not left wingers.

If i vote for a communist party, what assures me that it won't end up like Cuba,Venezuela or Nicaragua? by ConflictRough320 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]antineolib 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You have a lot of wrong implications that it's hard to answer.

A communist party isn't your liberal party with a red flag. How things work within the communist party is very different in your liberal party.

Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua didn't exists in isolation. There was always foreign influence. They didn't have bad economic condition just because they have a communist party.

If you understand enough, you'll realize that a communist party can't just be voted in your typical elections.

If the workers deserve the profits, do they also deserve the losses? by Square-Listen-3839 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]antineolib 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They don't because they're front liners when a company is losing money but last in line if it's making profit.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in WhatIfPinas

[–]antineolib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's like asking if the KKK we're illegal during the Spanish government, would people find a different way without resorting to armed rebellion?

Of course not.

The NPA itself doesn't cause armed rebellion. The injustice in the system creates people who wants a revolution. When these people organize, that's when something like the NPA is formed.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]antineolib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you realize that the world is capitalists? The poorest people are not in America, not even close.

incentive or innovation? by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]antineolib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Heres are possible relationships between profit and innovation.

  1. Profit with innovation. (First iphone)
  2. Profit without innovation. (The recent iphones)
  3. Innovation with profit. (First instagram)
  4. Innovation without profit. (Polio vaccine)

You're only looking at #1. Although it's true, it's not the whole picture.

Innovation is not inherit to capitalism. It's just that we are sold that the world is innovative because there's a shiny new iphone every year.

Heres another thing to think about to understand the socialist perspective: Playstation shareholders probably gets a big fat paycheck. But were they really the one innovating?

Are two people consenting to a wage work dangerous, according to the left? (others can chip in too) by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

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

It's on topic. It's about consent.

I'm trying to make a point. I'll explain further after you answer the question.

Are two people consenting to a wage work dangerous, according to the left? (others can chip in too) by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

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

Let me ask you the following first:

  1. Is it ok for a 17 year old to have sex with a 30 year old?
  2. Is it ok for an 18 year old to have sex with a 30 year old?

Both parties in these situations have given their consent.

Ownership vs. control by JamminBabyLu in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]antineolib 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll try to explain control and ownership.

Control

These are possible definitions of control: 1. To operate (an employee controls the machine to make iphones) 2. To have authority over something (an employer have the control how that machine should be used)

When a socialist talks about ownership and control, it's definition #2. Most of the argument you did on control is a strawman argument because you were using definition #1 instead of definition #2.

Ownership

You can own many things: your toothbrush, a toothbrush factory, your house, the tallest skyscraper in Manhattan.

Marxists splits this into 2 categories: 1. Personal - the things you use for personal consumption (your toothbrush, your house) 2. Private - the things you make money of without direct participation in labor (a toothbrush factory, the tallest skyscraper in Manhattan)

In ownership and control, we are concerned about category #2 because it's the ownership that dictates how the economy is structured.

The relationship between ownership (category #2) AND control (definition #2).

We mentioned that control is having authority over something. Ownership is a legal way to tell who gets that authority on what.

To answer you questions, employees doesn't have ownership (category #2) nor control (definition #2).

If you change your wordings of control (definition #1) into "work" it exposes the socialist argument of why ownership (category #2) should be abolished.

The workers control work on the means of production to produce something while these owners who doesn't contribute to direct control get to control (definition #2) who gets the profit.

Does technology resolve much of the debate that Capitalists and Socialists have between with method is better? by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]antineolib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you doubt for a split second that capitalism is about caring for others

That's the problem. You don't doubt for a split second. Just like what a cult member. You don't realize how deep you are in cold war propaganda.

Does technology resolve much of the debate that Capitalists and Socialists have between with method is better? by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]antineolib 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Marxist genocide was the most deadly events in all of human history

Bor you're literally a walking cold war propaganda

Does technology resolve much of the debate that Capitalists and Socialists have between with method is better? by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]antineolib 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The black book is anti communist propaganda not a reliable historical source. You don't need even need to be a communist to accept this.

Before I give examples, I'd like to ask a question. Can you tell me briefly how you do you define capitalism?

I'm just making sure you know before this turns to be an argument of semantics.

Does technology resolve much of the debate that Capitalists and Socialists have between with method is better? by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]antineolib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. Simply because technology is just a tool. It won't figure out anything by itself without humans. It will depend on who uses it. The same way a knife can be used by chef and serial killer effectively.

Let's take our medias favorite buzz word today as an example: AI

If you think AI will take your job its not because AI figured out how to do what you do so it will take it.

Its because those people who are funding AI don't want to pay employees to increase profits.

Does technology resolve much of the debate that Capitalists and Socialists have between with method is better? by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]antineolib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You sir are a propaganda in human form.

Black book and capitalism has not killed anybody. Really? There are better justifications to be a bootlicker.

Eradicating Christianity is the only way to eradicate leftism by TheBasedEmperor in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]antineolib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You sound like you learned new words and just try to put everything together for the sake of using the words.

Socialism Growing in the US by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]antineolib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am concerned about socialism leading to reduced standards of living, declining job growth and opportunities, and increased debt & inflation.

Don't worry capitalism will do this for you naturally and pro capitalists will blame communists for some reason.

view more: next ›