Everything is made by workers. The capital that capitalists claim to provide, such as machinery and buildings, was also made by workers. Theres not a single thing that a capitalist has contributed except his own personal labor in some capacity of management, which is only worth a white collar salary and never billions of dollars.
Communists are not any better, they just want to steal all the stolen capital (which they also never made) and become the new ruling class.
Theres no such thing as a honest rich man, if some workaholic valuable worker like a surgeon pulls 100 hour workweeks for 50 years he still would never make a billion dollars.

>>509533842 (OP)
it's not like you made most of the shit you own

>>509533842 (OP)
Congratulations, you have modeled class society, the abolition of which is the goal of communism

the niggerbaby?

>>509534043
>it's not like you made most of the shit you own
I worked for them and received compensation of a value significantly lower than the labor i provided.
In youtube theres some video by an influencer that traded some trinket like a fidget spinner for something like a diesel truck. He did it to prove a point, he would barter, sell and resell items for the wrong value, never engaging in value for value excgange, but always gaining. He would sell something worth 100 dollars for 150, and buy a 1000 dollar item for only 600. While there was no violence involved, it was still theft and fraud.

>>509534477
well how do you think anyone gets machinery and buildings
and btw value is subjective not objective

>>509534674
>and btw value is subjective not objective
It is 100% objective that no man can get billions of dollars from working. There can still be large wealth differences associated with labor, surgeons can become millionaires just from their labor, they can make in a day what other workers must earn in months.
Hence, anyone with billions of dollars has stolen them.

>>509534674
>well how do you think anyone gets machinery and buildings
They are made by workers, like construction workers, miners, machinists and welders at assorted industrial plants and the engineers that design them.
CEOs and lower level managers are just workers, but shareholders do nothing. They just receive profits

>>509534915
it's not stealing from someone if you sell them something that's worth less to you than the money they'll pay you
that's just common sense because otherwise there's no purpose in trading

>>509535159
my coffee was grown in a foreign country by someone i've never met but i paid for it
i'm not asking you how stuff is made

>>509535194
>it's not stealing from someone if you sell them something that's worth less to you than the money they'll pay you
Items are worth the same to everyone. Thats is called market economics.
An item for sale for 100 dollars is worth 100 dollars for anyone, the price tag doesnt change based on the alleged personal opinion of the person buying.

>>509535283
>i'm not asking you how stuff is made
Everything is made by workers, hence anyone whos not working and gets paid anything is stealing.

>>509535381
no items are not worth the same to everyone
there are plenty of items that i would be charged $100 for if i wanted to buy them but which i think are really stupid and therefore not worth that much money
if many people feel the same way then the seller will probably lower the price so that he can sell his items

>>509535600
>no items are not worth the same to everyone
Yes they are, thats the whole idea of market economics. Value is subjective, however it is the same for everyone.
>>509535600
>0 for if i wanted to buy them but which i think are really stupid a
It doesnt matter if you dont want the item, the value is just how much you'd have to pay for them. Theres a million things i cant afford such as my own private passenger jet and they dont become valueless in my eyes just because i cant afford them. And i would not treat something valuable like a platinum ingot like worthless just because i have no personal use for it. The market value of an item is not related to your personal opinion of it.
Dont believe me? Go to a supermarket and try to buy groceries for a reduced price than the one in the tag just because "reasons and preferences in your head". The price is the same for everyone

>>509535963
you're confusing price with value, they're absolutely not the same thing
consider btw why a seller is selling his items
he's doing it because the money he gets for them is more valuable to him than keeping the items for himself

>>509536127
>you're confusing price with value,
Price is value, this is not a confusion. Nobody cares what your personal opinions of a product is, it means nothing for literally anyone

>>509536127
>consider btw why a seller is selling his items
The point of trade is to diversify your assets, not necesarily to gain value.
say, if a man has 1000 dollars worth of oranges but doesnt want oranges, he can trade them for 1000 dollars worth of other products. This is a trade where theres no value gained
However a thief would sell 1000 dollars of oranges for 2000 dollars, and use the 2000 dollars to buy 4000 dollars of goods.
This is what all the billionaires do, stealing through fraud.

>>509533842 (OP)
The powers that be have a new system that has been in the development for decades now, ready to be rolled out in the coming years. It will operate in parallel starting sometime this year and by the next decade it will be fully operational as the Agenda 2030 goals are slowly being implemented.
There will be no collapse, no violence, no uprising, no world war, no revolution, no killing of jews or politicians or other such fantasies. Instead there will be law & order, compliance and total surveillance until the very end. AI will be at the center of it all.

The Great Reset is inevitable.

>>509536660
That text is such a derranged amd contradictory fantasy. Any stable system would nudge and coerce people into cooperating and would not simply mass murder anyone that has the slightest opposition. Such a heavy handed system is simply called chattel slavery, and chattel slavery does end because slaves revolt in waves that spread. Theres never any need for a plan, its usually some single slave that chimps out and hes copies by other.

>>509533842 (OP)
You only own what you can defend. The outsourcing of defense is the origin of the ruling class. In post-scarcity conditions the only thing compelling you do seek dominance over others socio-sexual status. Sexual competition is the origin of all post-scarcity competition. Any faction seeks to disarm the people and/or to create a sexual free-for-all will be incapable of creating a society that empowers the worker.

>>509537376
>You only own what you can defend. T
Hence "the ruling class are just thieves"
Didnt the british royal family get started by just invading and stealing britain?

I can approximate up to a point the fact that it took work on their part too, organizing ect... but ffs the leding class of scum traitors took the basics away, like home ownership, proper healthcare... young can't start families, we are flooded by usless invaders!

I don't hat people for being rich, I hate some o the rich for being scumbag treasonous shit heads and want.them to be hung preferably by the Military fir convenience.
Publicly for me to enjoy, dirty fucking rags.

>>509534294
There can be no such thing as a classless society. Organizing humans into a society requires a social contract which in turn requires hierarchical power structures in order to be enforced. A classless society would just be anarchy, an "every man for himself" approach with no real social contract.

>>509533842 (OP)
>Communists are not any better, they just want to steal all the stolen capital (which they also never made) and become the new ruling class.
I agree.
We need a whole new system, neither capitalist, nor socialist, nor national socialist, nor feudal. They all suck.
But what other system is there?

>>509539536
Different factions of leftoids have different responses to this, but the basic idea is that hierarchy and class are not the same thing. Obviously complex social organization requires hierarchy in order to function, the problem is when this ossifies into certain groups of people (classes) hogging and feeling entitled to resources and power for their own benefit at the expense of the collective (i.e., economic exploitation)

>>509540846
power hierarchies ultimately create classes. It's inevitable. Every society that has ever existed throughout the entire existence of mankind proves this. There can be no such thing as a classless society. This is a natural law. Power corrupts. That's why Montesquieu tried to separate it into branches (legislative, judicial, executive). But even then, has we've seen with modern society, it doesn't take long for those "separated" branches to start working together as one in order to maximize their reach.

>>509541284
>power hierarchies ultimately create classes. It's inevitable
They trend towards that if left unchecked, but does that mean it's inevitable? Clearly some societies and models of social organization do a better job of controlling the progression of this process than others, so why write off the possibility that it could be arrested permanently?

Workers don’t provide a profit motive nor liability

>>509541640
>Clearly some societies and models of social organization do a better job of controlling the progression of this process than others, so why write off the possibility that it could be arrested permanently
give me one example of society in all of history which has existed without a power structure? Even direct democracy primitive clans had a power structure; the people in charge of validating the vote and enforcing it where at the top of the power structure. They eventually become the upper class of their clan.

>>509541640
>They trend towards that if left unchecked, but does that mean it's inevitable? Clearly some societies and models of social organization do a better job of controlling the progression of this process than others, so why write off the possibility that it could be arrested permanently?
Or the solution could be that advocated by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and even Leon Trotsky: either revolution every generation, to restart the system and even the playing field, or eternal, ongoing revolution.
The problem with both these approaches, however, is frequent or endless instability in society, and people dislike that, so they tolerate the emergence of entrenched class hierarchies until those classes are so entrenched that they become nearly impossible to remove, like with India's caste system that dates to ancient times, and which is like a class system on steroids.

>>509533842 (OP)
Distributism
look at it

>>509542096
you mean communsim?

>>509542018
Well, the ossification of hierarchy into class consists essentially of two things: the hierarchs using their delegated powers to accumulate wealth and powers outside those strictly delegated to them, and a limiting of the ability of the population to eject them their position once they're in it. Modern technology provides solutions to both problems. In the case of the former, these people's activities and wealth can be heavily scrutinized with the massive surveillance and intelligence resources we now have at our disposal. For the latter, everyone could just vote on their phones to get rid of someone they're tired of

>>509533842 (OP)
>Everything is made by workers.
What do you do for work? Show your real flag and post pics of some of the things you make with timestamp.

>>509543356
This is the problem with leftists, some of your criticism is valid, but when the time comes to offer alternatives, you pull stuff out of a bubble of idealism completely disconnected from reality.
>massive surveillance and intelligence resources we now have at our disposal
those resources will be used by the ruling class, not by you.

>>509544822
If you're trying to answer the question "how do we develop a political system that solves the problem that other political systems have been heretofore unable to solve" a good place to start would seem to me to be "recent technological advances that we didn't have access to before"
>those resources will be used by the ruling class, not by you
So make their use subject to strict public scrutiny. If someone tries to restrict access to them then kick them out of power via the second thing I described

>>509544822
>This is the problem with leftists, some of your criticism is valid, but when the time comes to offer alternatives, you pull stuff out of a bubble of idealism completely disconnected from reality.
Yes, some leftism is idealistic, but how is thinking that endless borrowing for tax breaks, without eventually suffering the consequences of bankruptcy, any less idealistic?