Communism : Practical. Rational. Inevitable.

[Hiricine]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GyWZr9H8qBY

If you don't believe me, take it from the beings that will make it possible.

On a more serious note, I just binge read a fair chunk of that debate.org page and recommend it to anyone whose mind isn't shut to challenging his beliefs : http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-communism-inevitable

Let us remind, yet again, that communism is just the common ownership of the means of proлduction. It doesn't have to be USSR-like.

It has to be USSR like because whenever you have centralized leadership, even if you have an altruistic leader someone will come and stab them in the back. Also you have to keep people from leaving, so if you decentralize it theres no power structure to stop them, and if you don't they'll create a new means of production and have incentive to out produce the rest of your populace, and either take them with them or cause enough strife that you'll have to imprison/kill them.

Just the premise is immoral because the state has to use force to take the means of production, because it does not have a way to do so without force, and when it tries to compete directly with private industry it generally always loses depending on the task.

[Machismo]

Quite often, they don't.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...up-and-leaving

"Consumer choice" is a myth fabricated by rich white people.

And yet, within 10 miles, there are several stores that people can shop at for food and groceries.

[Elegiac]

And yet, within 10 miles, there are several stores that people can shop at for food and groceries.

> "Consumer choice" is a myth fabricated by rich white people.
> "It's not, you can just hop in your car which you pay for and use gasoline which you pay for to drive a distance which takes time to buy groceries at a much higher price for the sake of ethics."

You know that thing about coastal liberal elites living in a bubble? You're doing that.

[Machismo]

> "Consumer choice" is a myth fabricated by rich white people.
> "It's not, you can just hop in your car which you pay for and use gasoline which you pay for to drive a distance which takes time to buy groceries at a much higher price for the sake of ethics."

You know that thing about coastal liberal elites living in a bubble? You're doing that.

You tried to push an example, and I blew it up in your face. You are blaming others for the consumer choices you decided to make. Take some responsibility for your own actions for a change.

[Elegiac]

You tried to push an example, and I blew it up in your face. You are blaming others for the consumer choices you decided to make. Take some responsibility for your own actions for a change.

Being a rich white person I have the luxury of being able to afford to make those sorts of decisions, and boycott certain businesses because I disagree with their practices by virtue of the fact my income makes alternatives bearable.

Not so much for people that are earning minimum wage, or living in an underserviced area, or don't have access to the tools to educate themselves. More than that, it's simply unreasonable to expect any human who isn't a specialist in business practices to be up to date with what every business they patronize is doing.

But hey, typical libertarian mentality of blame the victim. Rather than insist the business actually, you know, behaves, it's the fault of the people suffering as a result.

That lack of human empathy and social sense makes one a bad person.

[Machismo]

Being a rich white person I have the luxury of being able to afford to make those sorts of decisions, and boycott certain businesses because I disagree with their practices by virtue of the fact my income makes alternatives bearable.

Not so much for people that are earning minimum wage, or living in an underserviced area, or don't have access to the tools to educate themselves. More than that, it's simply unreasonable to expect any human who isn't a specialist in business practices to be up to date with what every business they patronize is doing.

But hey, typical libertarian mentality of blame the victim. Rather than insist the business actually, you know, behaves, it's the fault of the people suffering as a result.

That lack of human empathy and social sense makes one a bad person.

You still haven't shown me where there are no viable alternatives. You created this hypothetical... then it went down in flames. You want to blame businesses for something they didn't do. I blame people for their own actions, not the actions of others.

[Elegiac]

You still haven't shown me where there are no viable alternatives. You created this hypothetical... then it went down in flames.

I already addressed your white privilege propaganda by pointing out that 'there's another store within ten miles' doesn't address issues a lot of Americans face with transportation, disposable time, and wage suppression.

You want to blame businesses for something they didn't do. I blame people for their own actions, not the actions of others.

"Unethical business actions are not the actions of the business."

Bye, Felicia.

[Machismo]

I already addressed your white privilege propaganda by pointing out that 'there's another store within ten miles' doesn't address issues a lot of Americans face with transportation, disposable time, and wage suppression.



"Unethical business actions are not the actions of the business."

Bye, Felicia.

I'm white, and the nearest store to me growing up was 5 miles away. Was I a fucking victim? No. Were my parents? No.

Once again, you are trying to blame businesses for something they simply did not do. Do we need to have a business every block, just to make you happy? If a business does not act appropriately, then use a different business. The example you brought up was blown to shit, because there are several alternatives within 10 miles.

[Elba]

Your table is ridiculous. If you don't like it, don't shop at those companies.

How is the table ridiculous?

Also, I'm not American.

[Machismo]

How is the table ridiculous?

Also, I'm not American.

Your claim that they are worth 40 times less is ridiculous. People are worth exactly what they are paid.

[Elba]

I already addressed your white privilege propaganda by pointing out that 'there's another store within ten miles' doesn't address issues a lot of Americans face with transportation, disposable time, and wage suppression.

Machismo seems to be utterly incapable of understanding power dynamics and uneven playing fields.

- - - Updated - - -

Your claim that they are worth 40 times less is ridiculous. People are worth exactly what they are paid.

So you a CEO deserves to be paid 475 times more than the average worker? That the labor he performs justifies that salary?

[Machismo]

Machismo seems to be utterly incapable of understanding power dynamics and uneven playing fields.

- - - Updated - - -



So you a CEO deserves to be paid 475 times more than the average worker? That the labor he performs justifies that salary?

He deserves to be paid what the market allows him to be paid. If you don't like it, then don't spend your money at such a company.

[Hilhen7]

He deserves to be paid what the market allows him to be paid. If you don't like it, then don't spend your money at such a company.

That's not true, just because your paid a certain amount doesn't mean your worth it. All it means is that you where able make the correct connections and did well in the game of office politics. I mean we do have CEO's and presidents that fail to produce results, and when they get fired they still get their golden parachute...

And is every sports player is also worth exactly what they are paid?

[Machismo]

That's not true, just because your paid a certain amount doesn't mean your worth it. All it means is that you where able make the correct connections and played well using office politics.

If we go by that logic every sports player is also worth exactly what they are paid.

Actually, it does mean that is what you are worth. It means two willing entities agreed on a price.

Every sports player is paid exactly what they are worth. Clearly someone was willing to pay them that much, and nobody was willing to pay more.

[Hilhen7]

Actually, it does mean that is what you are worth. It means two willing entities agreed on a price.

Every sports player is paid exactly what they are worth. Clearly someone was willing to pay them that much, and nobody was willing to pay more.

Then by that logic why would you fire anyone for poor performance, if your paying them exactly what they are worth?

Also there would be no so thing as a poor trade in sports, since your giving up exactly what the player is worth.

[Machismo]

Then by that logic why would you fire anyone for poor performance, if your paying them exactly what they are worth?

Also there would be no so thing as a poor trade in sports, since your giving up exactly what the player is worth.

You fire them, because you can get someone more efficient for the same price. In essence, you find a more competitive model.

[Hilhen7]

You fire them, because you can get someone more efficient for the same price. In essence, you find a more competitive model.

If the new employee is able to do more work for the same price then you overpaid the last employee or your underpaying your current employee.

If two employees are getting paid the same amount but one can do more work logic tells us that someone is not valued at the correct rate.

[Machismo]

How are they more efficient, are they able to do more or the same work for less? Then how was the last employee worth exactly what you paid them?

They are able to do more work for the same costs, making them inherently more efficient. It's nothing more than the fundamental basics of supply and demand. An employer has a demand to fill labor, and employee is that supply of labor. They come to an agreeable cost, and the transaction is complete.

[Hilhen7]

They are able to do more work for the same costs, making them inherently more efficient. It's nothing more than the fundamental basics of supply and demand. An employer has a demand to fill labor, and employee is that supply of labor. They come to an agreeable cost, and the transaction is complete.

Your missing my point. How can both employees be getting paid what they are worth if one is a "better" employee and they both make the same salary?

[Machismo]

Your missing my point. How can both employees be getting paid what they are worth if one is a "better" employee and they both make the same salary?

The determination of worth is based on the agreed upon sale. It's no different than purchasing a car, I paid what the car is worth to me, regardless of how it performs. Now, I may regret that decision at a later date, but at the time of purchase, I paid what I felt it to be worth.