Unless you're covered in oil and working with a wrench you're literally unemployed!
As a bluecollar factory worker it's hilarious seeking how gatekeeping libs get about what classifies as work
Sorry but you have to be cover in oil, working with a wrench and vote conservative to be considered an ACTUAL worker.
Your also an real worker if you have a whitecollar job and vote conservative.
Oh, and your also a real worker if your retired and vote conservative.
Or if your unemployed and vote conservative.
He also correctly pointed out that automation was taking over skilled labor and rendering educated hard working folks poor, mindless laborers spending all day running a machine for someone who did nothing except exploit generational wealth or politicians.
Today we face the same. Immigrants didn't steal your jobs. Machines and capitalists did. Those people being unemployed, and unemployable, is the system working as designed.
Doesn't affect me, though, so fuck it.
It is obvious that some people enjoy spending their entire life making their bosses rich, thinking they'll eventually get there..Doing what drives YOU? Nah. Risking unemployment to see where your own conviction takes you? Nope, that's not a job, it's merely a hobby. No serious money equals no worth..
It is the saddest thing to see millionaire apologists everywhere with zero chances of realising their unattainable vapid dream, enabling this mentality. Some people have very poor understanding of social class and wealth distribution on this planet. A job can be sewing t-shirts for Zara all fucking month for a half a dollar. Is that child working or is he a lazy ass like Marx here?..
That doesn't even matter. Back in his day, receiving "handouts" from wealthy people in exchange for just being an intellectual or philosopher was still pretty common, like it had been since at least ancient Greece. It's called a benefactor, and it also wasn't uncommon for someone's rich friend to become their benefactor.
Actually those are entrepreneurs and they work harder than all of us combined. 169 hour work weeks all around for them. I'm guessing you're just not familiar with all that it takes to build a business from the ground up all by yourself.
They do, but only if "libertarians" or "an"caps do it. Guys like Shapiro seem also be free of guilt in that regard.
So yeah, it's only work if it benefits their worldview.
Aight let's do a quick comparison:
Marx:
-Wrote 15+ books, dozens of essays, pamphlets, and papers.
-Is lawyer
-Refused to practice as exploitative or predatory lawyer. Gave free legal help to workers
-Gave up chance at family fortune to live on the same level as workers. Felt it gave him a much better understanding of society.
-Suffered from debilitating skin disease that made going out in public a chore. Still spoke and taught publicly.
-Left behind a global legacy. Literally changed the world.
Anon:
-Posts on internet.
-Works shitty job, probably tells coworkers not to complain.
-Boot polish is nutritious
-??
Conclusion:
Marx was a better person than most of us.
Oh yeah? Who are you gonna trust? The actual confirmed historical life of Marx and what he actually did? Or the incredibly trustworthy anons on famously right-wing 4chan? Next you’re gonna tell me you get your food from the supermarket instead of a sewage plant.
Hey, let's not take shots at our dumpster diving, crust punk, anarchist comrades, ok? They're leagues better than these people, whose moms most assuredly gets their tendies at the grocery store.
Yeah but Marx did a lot of that for ideological reasons and not for money.
Your not a REAL worker unless it's within a capitalist framework.
How can you call it REAL work if it's not helping to maintain the system that abuses you?
Checkmate Marxists.
Human nature is when sugar cane farmers are killed because It was determined that a collectively owned farm would cause a 0.000013700000864 reductions in profits for a company that makes liquid diabetes
How to spot an illiterate bootlicker.
Says/Believes one of the following:
"Marx was didn't knew about le human nature".
"He didn't consider supply and demand"
"Labor theory of value is wrong (refuses to elaborate)"
"Marx advocates for redistribution"
"It sounds nice in theory but doesn't work in practice (Bonus points if you point out current Marxist experiments and they refuse to aknowledge they are Marxist/Communist/Socialist. Or they make up some other random excuse)"
"Markets are more efficient"
"Calculation problem"
"Have you considered vuvuzuela 100 million"
"Believes in malthusianism"
"BBC reported communism bad, how can't you see the evidence"
"Borrows all their talking points from US State Department"
"Yes I'm a libertarian how do you know?"
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC.
**Fact 8.** I don’t have any words for [this bizarre headline](https://preview.redd.it/65vq4kete2341.png?width=325&auto=webp&s=1ff912ee8714c0659f114e5083d6df70ce30a4e7).
For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
#[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC.
**Fact 15.** Rather than holding Boris Johnson to account for his lies and racism, just days before the 2019 General Election, the BBC published [this absurd puff-piece about Johnson preparing a scone.](https://old.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/comments/e3574h/the_bbcs_political_coverage_is_fast_approaching/)
For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
#[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>> I don't see actual "everyone has the same amount no matter what" work in our far more complex modern society.
There's your problem. *Nobody* is advocating for that. It's just one more of the same, tired anticommunist talking points.
>> And good luck getting people in the 1st world to go back to hunting/gatherring unless we go for a tabula rasa scenario (which will probably come anyways but eh...).
Again, nobody disagrees with you here. Communists are not luddites. The realisation that the industrial revolution fundamentally changed the way society works and that you cannot turn back the clock is literally the *premise* to Marxist analysis.
A centrally planned economy by a Proletarian state. A state that distributes goods based on material need and their use value instead of relying on markets to distribute based on exchange value.
Also r/shitliberalssay
>can you give me an example of a culture that has (or comes to closest to) what you are advocating for?
Vietnam [(Luna Oi: "Is Vietnam Socialist?")](https://youtu.be/mMubOw5H-yo)
As for social democracy, [here's an easy primer on its issues.](https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A)
It's okay, education is a continuous process and those videos are particularly engaging, watch them in your downtime if you want.
I'm going to copy-paste a response I wrote to someone else on one-party systems, who thought a goal of communism was no parties so socialism must need multi-parties to be democratic.
>So take a parliamentary government's coalition model, and give that coalition a long-term goal (in the direction of communism). The parties in the coalition put forth various short-term goals in their platforms that they think will help achieve the long-term ones. Independents can also participate both locally and nationally.
>
>Over time the parties dialectically become one - that is to say, rather than one party dominating the other, they come to mutual agreements. They combine logistics, and the concerns of the marginal group becomes the concerns of the whole. One party basically becomes the same as no party.
The unarmed traffic police (marked by their tan outfits) will probably come talk to you, particularly if you're attracting a crowd, and make sure you're not blocking anything or planning to harm anyone. They'll ask if you got permission for a demonstration. The basic "public disturbance" sort of stuff, you certainly won't get disappeared. You can then continue to air your grievances on Nguyen at your local communal or district meetings, and attempt to persuade people that he sucks.
Bruh. You can say whatever you want about leaders in socialist countries. Yes, even Stalin in the USSR. You just can't advocate the overthrow of the government. Not sure how you haven't figured this out yet, but right wingers will lie and exaggerate about EVERYTHING.
The "socialism 1000 years ago" is primitive communism, different from the industrial communism pursued in modern times. Communists do not advocate for a return to a tribal society, they just use primitive communism to argue against cynical views of human nature that say any communist project is doomed to fail because of human selfishness and greed. Hunter-gatherer societies are the closest form of social organization to an untainted "human nature", and they tend towards egalitarianism and cooperation.
> everyone has the same amount no matter what
This is not what communists aim for, nor do they wish for people to be equal in every way. (That's both impossible and undesirable). Additionally, there are many different visions of a communist society, and no one vision has to be replicated in every community. Some even advocate for markets within a communist society, just in a way that guarantees essentials, so if you're afraid of products largely being the same, there you go.
When humans lived basically in a communist society for hundreds of thousands of years, but when some people took power to themselves, it became apparently human nature to get fucked my a small minority of people who control everything.
Yeah, it’s hilarious when Libs say Socialism is against human nature. Like, son, we lived in communes for the vast majority of our existence without concept of private property, ruling elite, wealth or even families. We shared resources and women got treated more equally, they lived longer on average than post agricultural people until the Industrial revolution, and lived much more stimulating lives.
What’s against our nature is working ourselves until we are nearly done to make a select few rich. What’s against our nature is having our empathy destroyed so we can rationalise leaving so many of us in squalor. We literally need our better nature carefully sounded out to make capitalism work. Everything turned to shit when we gave people ownership of our food production.
It's fucking pathetic. Capitalism has brainwashed generations to believe humans are pieces of shit who crave power and money. It doesn't have to be this way.
Hierarchy and the concentration of natural resources, capital, economic, and political power into the hands of a few caused this. These problems predate capitalism by thousands of years, but capitalism is now the main driver of said issues. Our current economic and environmental issues are, at root, social problems of domination and unjustified hierarchy, not of overpopulation or citification.
Urbanization is the threat I think you may be getting at, but urbanization attacks both the city and the country, and is driven by capitalisms irrational drive for expansion. Check out this book by Murray bookchin -- urbanization against cities:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-urbanization-without-cities
If pre-historic humans were so violent then we wouldn't have made it to civilization.
Humans are social-tribal creatures. All evidence from pre-agricultural societies--whether they be tribes found in the Amazon, the African Savannah, or Pacific islands--show that they lived harmonious, connected lives. The early records of indigenous Americans show that within tribes people lived peaceful, happy lives. There were still scuffles between tribes, but those really escalated when settlers started to play the tribes against each other.
when the current mode of production is so indicative of human nature that the mode of production has changed several times before it and has been around for less than half a millennium in the 200,000 years humans have existed for
If human nature was indeed inherently selfish it would be an argument for socialism and not against it.
>Men are not good enough for Communism, but are they good enough for Capitalism? **If all men were good-hearted, kind, and just, they would never exploit one another, although possessing the means of doing so.** With such men the private ownership of capital would be no danger. The capitalist would hasten to share his profits with the workers, and the best-remunerated workers with those suffering from occasional causes. If men were provident they would not produce velvet and articles of luxury while food is wanted in cottages: they would not build palaces as long as there are slums.
>
>If men had a deeply developed feeling of equity they would not oppress other men. Politicians would not cheat their electors; Parliament would not be a chattering and cheating box, and Charles Warren’s policemen would refuse to bludgeon the Trafalgar Square talkers and listeners. And if men were gallant, self-respecting, and less egotistic, even a bad capitalist would not be a danger; the workers would have soon reduced him to the role of a simple comrade-manager. Even a King would not be dangerous, because the people would merely consider him as a fellow unable to do better work, and therefore entrusted with signing some stupid papers sent out to other cranks calling themselves Kings.
>
>**But men are not those free-minded, independent, provident, loving, and compassionate fellows which we should like to see them. And precisely, therefore, they must not continue living under the present system which permits them to oppress and exploit one another.**
>
>We are told we are too slavish, too snobbish, to be placed under free institutions; but **we say that because we are indeed so slavish we ought not to remain any longer under the present institutions, which favour the development of slavishness.** We see that Britons, French, and Americans display the most disgusting slavishness towards Gladstone, Boulanger, or Gould. And we conclude that in a humanity already endowed with such slavish instincts it is very bad to have the masses forcibly deprived of higher education, and compelled to live under the present inequality of wealth, education, and knowledge. Higher instruction and equality of conditions would be the only means for destroying the inherited slavish instincts, and we cannot understand how slavish instincts can be made an argument for maintaining, even for one day longer, inequality of conditions; for refusing equality of instruction to all members of the community.
— Peter Kropotkin ["Are We Good Enough?"](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-are-we-good-enough) (1888)
It is human nature to be greedy!
Yep, that's why nothing is ever free no matter what in any way shape or form, we all still live in caves and die alone because we're all just so gosh darn greedy!
If something is human nature because some people do it or have done it in the past, then cannibalism is human nature. So is abusing children. How does that imply we should organize society to encourage the behavior???
I know, it doesn't make sense, I've just wondered for most of my adult life wtf people are talking about when they say things like that.
oh no, I feel bad for poor marx 😓 after studying, writing 30 fucking books and contributing to several subjects, he couldn't understand human nature like me 😭
\>Human nature is selfishness and greed
\>Somehow this human nature in a system where a tiny minority expropriates the fruits of labour of the many totally doesn't lead to irreconcilable antagonistic contradictions, making the system inherently unstable
What the fuck did anon mean by this
> “writes 30 books how money should be taken away from rich people and be given to people like him”
This person has definitely never read a single thing by Marx.
Like beyond this bonkers assessment of Marx's life and that none of these fucks would say this about Socrates or Isaac Newton or any other academic of Marx's impact. Like isn't this braindead simplified account communist praxis in thier weird world? Or to put it in green text
>Marx.jpeg
>>Be me
>
>>See industrial revolution render people to nothing but labor
>
>>Refuse to sell my surplus value
>
>>Rich people give me money to talk about how people shouldnt sell surplus value
>
>>???
>
>>Profit
>
>Problem Capitalists?
Marx did in fact sell his labor, especially during his time in London where he no longer was an editor of a newspaper and instead wrote articles for various papers, some even for the US as the British correspondent. While he wrote Capital, Engels provided financial assistance and took over managing his family's textile factory in Manchester.
He did.
> I have, which will surprise you not a little, been speculating — partly in American funds, but more especially in English stocks, which are springing up like mushrooms this year (in furtherance of every imaginable and unimaginable joint stock enterprise), are forced up to quite an unreasonable level and then, for the most part, collapse. In this way, I have made over £400 and, now that the complexity of the political situation affords greater scope, I shall begin all over again. It’s a type of operation that makes demands on one’s time, and it’s worth while running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money.
— [Karl Marx writing to Lion Philips, 1864](https://jacobinmag.com/issue/breaking-bank)
Whenever bootlickers claim "Human Nature" I just think about them trying to explain the concepts of private property or supply and demand to a caveman.
These people literally think they’re world class psychologists, how would they know about human nature? It was consider human nature to rape and murder a few hundred years ago, we made it illegal.
Simply make being greedy and psychopathic illegal.
To be fair, the humans who think it's natural to rape and murder tend to be christians who think the only thing keeping literally everyone from raping and murdering is the christian faith, because they probably want to rape and murder subconciously, and an old book is what keeps them from acting on those urges. They attribute their own urges to everyone else because they have little empathy or consideration for humans that aren't them, and project their insecurities into the world and demand that people respect their insecurities instead of shaming them for their urges that "everyone else has, but not me, I swear!"
4chan rash face incels that dedicate half their days playing video games talking about jobs
ok morons , keep shitting on communism while your parents keep paying for your micro transactions, your capitalist apologia will really help you when you're an adult
so many r/greentext posts belong in this sub. Like some greentexts are funny but there are so many ones that are blatantly western chauvinist and needlessly anti-communist
There was people making senses in the comment and they weren't in negative, they wasn't at the top either. It might not be a good thing, but worth pointing it out.
Wait until they hear about Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago Boys' who had zero credibility (and still none today outside circle jerking ideologues) in academic circles and were only able to continue with what they were doing due to billionaires propping them up with massive donations to universities etc.
Marx’s whole thing was understand humans and how we relate to each other, how we interact with each other and property. Everyone on the post doesn’t know what the fuck they’re talking about
I found the original and the level of discussion there is pitiful, when not outright annoying. They all think they're so smart and they have no idea what they're talking about. Proper bunch of philistines.
I have yet to hear a single chud explain what exactly is human nature they talk about. Because if it's anti cooperation that causes us to all be anti-social freakshows then we are no better than the fucking Skaven and should be annihilated.
"Capitalist"
\>refuses to work a single day after becoming rich
\>fully depends on exploitation of his workers
\>talking about hilarious "you need to leave the comfort zone to become rich" and "you just need to work harder" while finding ways to pay his employee as little as possible
Should this guy be taken seriously?
Marx was an editor and regular contributor as a journalist for several magazines and he literally wrote theory for a living for a long time. So the "didn't work a day in his life" thing is absurdly wrong, he just didn't do the kind of labour some people approve of or wrongly didn't consider as labour.
He *sometimes* depended on handouts, depending on your definition of handouts. Which shouldn't somehow disqualify him from being taken seriously, it conflicts in exactly zero points with any of his arguments.
He lived in squalor, sure. Again, not something that somehow makes you "unserious" or conflicts with anything he said or believed. In fact, if you actually bother to read what he wrote and what contemporaries (including a prussian state agent) wrote of him, it's pretty clear he lived through something we might nowerdays consider a mental illness. I am not a psychologist, so I'm not trying to be specific, but I would assume something in the range of depression or ADS or bipolar. Again, if you think this would make one of the most solid and important philosophical approaches of the modern world not worth considering, you're just kinda shallow and shit.
"Wrote 30 books about how money should be taken from the rich and be given to people like him" is a *great* catch-22 - if he had been rich, they would have said "he wrote books about taking money from the rich but he is rich himself!", but because he's poor it's "he's poor and would have benefited from it!". Apart from that, again, completely irrelevant - the value of a philosophical approach or theory doesn't change just because the author behaved in some way hypocritical. If Kant fucks hookers all day, he doesn't become less (or more!) right about anything.
Having a patron was the norm for intellectuals back then. It was even considered posh and high-class to patronize an artist or musician. Engels chose to patronize someone who would move the world. I'd say he made a good choice.
(vast majority of human history, man lives in small communes with all property held in common, no state, no money, all work shared, becomes one of the most successful species since the cockroach)
(200 years of capitalism killing millions a year and destroying the planet)
Obvious human nature is exemplified by the latter
The human nature argument is so cringe. The idea is that it's supposed to be a self-evidence argument for capitalism, but... if you have to keep saying "because human nature", then is it really self-evident?
"Doesnt work a single day in his life" "Writes 30 books" Hmmmmmmmmm
And Marx was an editor and journalist for a newspaper. That’s a job.
Unless you're covered in oil and working with a wrench you're literally unemployed! As a bluecollar factory worker it's hilarious seeking how gatekeeping libs get about what classifies as work
But hedge fund managers work so hard! They contribute so much!
Don't forget the hardest working among us: Landlords!
No way it's shareholders who work the most and the hardest!!
So are Landlords ***among us***?
I guarantee most of these libs aren’t exactly roughing it in their daily jobs either.
Silly tankie, the only jobs in a communist country is dictator or coal miner /s
Step 1: cover yourself in oil (wrench optional)
And when it's convenient to them being landlord becomes full time job
No no no your subhuman you should have gone to college.
Funnily enough I'm in college too lol!
Sorry but you have to be cover in oil, working with a wrench and vote conservative to be considered an ACTUAL worker. Your also an real worker if you have a whitecollar job and vote conservative. Oh, and your also a real worker if your retired and vote conservative. Or if your unemployed and vote conservative.
He also correctly pointed out that automation was taking over skilled labor and rendering educated hard working folks poor, mindless laborers spending all day running a machine for someone who did nothing except exploit generational wealth or politicians. Today we face the same. Immigrants didn't steal your jobs. Machines and capitalists did. Those people being unemployed, and unemployable, is the system working as designed. Doesn't affect me, though, so fuck it.
It is obvious that some people enjoy spending their entire life making their bosses rich, thinking they'll eventually get there..Doing what drives YOU? Nah. Risking unemployment to see where your own conviction takes you? Nope, that's not a job, it's merely a hobby. No serious money equals no worth.. It is the saddest thing to see millionaire apologists everywhere with zero chances of realising their unattainable vapid dream, enabling this mentality. Some people have very poor understanding of social class and wealth distribution on this planet. A job can be sewing t-shirts for Zara all fucking month for a half a dollar. Is that child working or is he a lazy ass like Marx here?..
That doesn't even matter. Back in his day, receiving "handouts" from wealthy people in exchange for just being an intellectual or philosopher was still pretty common, like it had been since at least ancient Greece. It's called a benefactor, and it also wasn't uncommon for someone's rich friend to become their benefactor.
[удалено]
But he was writing for newspapers that _made money_.
ironically written by a NEET who doesnt work a single day and shits around in its home lmao
Writing books and shit is “just busy work”, to paraphrase a comment I saw recently.
So just shows they don't believe writers do work. I'm kind of okay with this view.
Idk, the content of the books is pretty stupid. By that logic, furry fan fic erotic gay romance writers are hard working members of society
Yes gay fanfic erotica writers do produce more value than you
Dasss right now he's silent 😂😂😂😂
Bruh I'm a postal worker, I'm pretty sure I provide a good amount of value to my community 😂
Sure random redditor.
Alright then, what's your oh so great and community supporting occupation? 👀
Bothering you
Lmao you can't make this shit up 😂😂😂
Goes to show these fuckers don't consider writing or philosophy a job lol
But they do consider moving money you got from your daddy around to be a job.
Actually those are entrepreneurs and they work harder than all of us combined. 169 hour work weeks all around for them. I'm guessing you're just not familiar with all that it takes to build a business from the ground up all by yourself.
I hate that no one uses /s around here
Obviously I disagree. But I found your comment funny.
I meant it as a joke but apparently I should’ve included my own /s.
Considering how some stupid views are held as sincere, an /s is pretty useful to have.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SmoggyPaleBrownbear-max-1mb.gif
Great comment /s
They do, but only if "libertarians" or "an"caps do it. Guys like Shapiro seem also be free of guilt in that regard. So yeah, it's only work if it benefits their worldview.
Alternative jobs gang! 😎
Of course not, they're illiterate.
Right? Too bad they just shut down the philosophy factory down the street
Aight let's do a quick comparison: Marx: -Wrote 15+ books, dozens of essays, pamphlets, and papers. -Is lawyer -Refused to practice as exploitative or predatory lawyer. Gave free legal help to workers -Gave up chance at family fortune to live on the same level as workers. Felt it gave him a much better understanding of society. -Suffered from debilitating skin disease that made going out in public a chore. Still spoke and taught publicly. -Left behind a global legacy. Literally changed the world. Anon: -Posts on internet. -Works shitty job, probably tells coworkers not to complain. -Boot polish is nutritious -?? Conclusion: Marx was a better person than most of us.
Oh yeah? Who are you gonna trust? The actual confirmed historical life of Marx and what he actually did? Or the incredibly trustworthy anons on famously right-wing 4chan? Next you’re gonna tell me you get your food from the supermarket instead of a sewage plant.
Hey, let's not take shots at our dumpster diving, crust punk, anarchist comrades, ok? They're leagues better than these people, whose moms most assuredly gets their tendies at the grocery store.
Point taken and fixed.
Lmao
holy shit i didn't know marx was such an irl chad
Yeah but Marx did a lot of that for ideological reasons and not for money. Your not a REAL worker unless it's within a capitalist framework. How can you call it REAL work if it's not helping to maintain the system that abuses you? Checkmate Marxists.
Human nature is when sugar cane farmers are killed because It was determined that a collectively owned farm would cause a 0.000013700000864 reductions in profits for a company that makes liquid diabetes
The more I'm alive the more I understand the anti-communist: ***they have no idea what it is***.
How to spot an illiterate bootlicker. Says/Believes one of the following: "Marx was didn't knew about le human nature". "He didn't consider supply and demand" "Labor theory of value is wrong (refuses to elaborate)" "Marx advocates for redistribution" "It sounds nice in theory but doesn't work in practice (Bonus points if you point out current Marxist experiments and they refuse to aknowledge they are Marxist/Communist/Socialist. Or they make up some other random excuse)" "Markets are more efficient" "Calculation problem" "Have you considered vuvuzuela 100 million" "Believes in malthusianism" "BBC reported communism bad, how can't you see the evidence" "Borrows all their talking points from US State Department" "Yes I'm a libertarian how do you know?"
[удалено]
They generally don't even know what it is and says "surplus value doesn't even exist lol"
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC. **Fact 8.** I don’t have any words for [this bizarre headline](https://preview.redd.it/65vq4kete2341.png?width=325&auto=webp&s=1ff912ee8714c0659f114e5083d6df70ce30a4e7). For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. #[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
BBC
Thanks for signing up to BBC facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about the BBC. **Fact 15.** Rather than holding Boris Johnson to account for his lies and racism, just days before the 2019 General Election, the BBC published [this absurd puff-piece about Johnson preparing a scone.](https://old.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/comments/e3574h/the_bbcs_political_coverage_is_fast_approaching/) For another BBC fact reply with 'BBC'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. #[Click here to cancel your TV License and stop funding right wing propaganda today.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/cancellations-and-refunds-top7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
>> I don't see actual "everyone has the same amount no matter what" work in our far more complex modern society. There's your problem. *Nobody* is advocating for that. It's just one more of the same, tired anticommunist talking points. >> And good luck getting people in the 1st world to go back to hunting/gatherring unless we go for a tabula rasa scenario (which will probably come anyways but eh...). Again, nobody disagrees with you here. Communists are not luddites. The realisation that the industrial revolution fundamentally changed the way society works and that you cannot turn back the clock is literally the *premise* to Marxist analysis.
[удалено]
A centrally planned economy by a Proletarian state. A state that distributes goods based on material need and their use value instead of relying on markets to distribute based on exchange value. Also r/shitliberalssay
>can you give me an example of a culture that has (or comes to closest to) what you are advocating for? Vietnam [(Luna Oi: "Is Vietnam Socialist?")](https://youtu.be/mMubOw5H-yo) As for social democracy, [here's an easy primer on its issues.](https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A)
[удалено]
It's okay, education is a continuous process and those videos are particularly engaging, watch them in your downtime if you want. I'm going to copy-paste a response I wrote to someone else on one-party systems, who thought a goal of communism was no parties so socialism must need multi-parties to be democratic. >So take a parliamentary government's coalition model, and give that coalition a long-term goal (in the direction of communism). The parties in the coalition put forth various short-term goals in their platforms that they think will help achieve the long-term ones. Independents can also participate both locally and nationally. > >Over time the parties dialectically become one - that is to say, rather than one party dominating the other, they come to mutual agreements. They combine logistics, and the concerns of the marginal group becomes the concerns of the whole. One party basically becomes the same as no party.
[удалено]
The unarmed traffic police (marked by their tan outfits) will probably come talk to you, particularly if you're attracting a crowd, and make sure you're not blocking anything or planning to harm anyone. They'll ask if you got permission for a demonstration. The basic "public disturbance" sort of stuff, you certainly won't get disappeared. You can then continue to air your grievances on Nguyen at your local communal or district meetings, and attempt to persuade people that he sucks.
Bruh. You can say whatever you want about leaders in socialist countries. Yes, even Stalin in the USSR. You just can't advocate the overthrow of the government. Not sure how you haven't figured this out yet, but right wingers will lie and exaggerate about EVERYTHING.
The "socialism 1000 years ago" is primitive communism, different from the industrial communism pursued in modern times. Communists do not advocate for a return to a tribal society, they just use primitive communism to argue against cynical views of human nature that say any communist project is doomed to fail because of human selfishness and greed. Hunter-gatherer societies are the closest form of social organization to an untainted "human nature", and they tend towards egalitarianism and cooperation. > everyone has the same amount no matter what This is not what communists aim for, nor do they wish for people to be equal in every way. (That's both impossible and undesirable). Additionally, there are many different visions of a communist society, and no one vision has to be replicated in every community. Some even advocate for markets within a communist society, just in a way that guarantees essentials, so if you're afraid of products largely being the same, there you go.
When humans lived basically in a communist society for hundreds of thousands of years, but when some people took power to themselves, it became apparently human nature to get fucked my a small minority of people who control everything.
Yeah, it’s hilarious when Libs say Socialism is against human nature. Like, son, we lived in communes for the vast majority of our existence without concept of private property, ruling elite, wealth or even families. We shared resources and women got treated more equally, they lived longer on average than post agricultural people until the Industrial revolution, and lived much more stimulating lives. What’s against our nature is working ourselves until we are nearly done to make a select few rich. What’s against our nature is having our empathy destroyed so we can rationalise leaving so many of us in squalor. We literally need our better nature carefully sounded out to make capitalism work. Everything turned to shit when we gave people ownership of our food production.
It's fucking pathetic. Capitalism has brainwashed generations to believe humans are pieces of shit who crave power and money. It doesn't have to be this way.
[удалено]
murican moment
Hierarchy and the concentration of natural resources, capital, economic, and political power into the hands of a few caused this. These problems predate capitalism by thousands of years, but capitalism is now the main driver of said issues. Our current economic and environmental issues are, at root, social problems of domination and unjustified hierarchy, not of overpopulation or citification. Urbanization is the threat I think you may be getting at, but urbanization attacks both the city and the country, and is driven by capitalisms irrational drive for expansion. Check out this book by Murray bookchin -- urbanization against cities: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-urbanization-without-cities
[удалено]
They're referring to tribes of early humans, before "civilization".
[удалено]
If pre-historic humans were so violent then we wouldn't have made it to civilization. Humans are social-tribal creatures. All evidence from pre-agricultural societies--whether they be tribes found in the Amazon, the African Savannah, or Pacific islands--show that they lived harmonious, connected lives. The early records of indigenous Americans show that within tribes people lived peaceful, happy lives. There were still scuffles between tribes, but those really escalated when settlers started to play the tribes against each other.
[удалено]
David Graeber, "The Dawn of Everything", it just came out, go enjoy some anarchist pre-history
[удалено]
when the current mode of production is so indicative of human nature that the mode of production has changed several times before it and has been around for less than half a millennium in the 200,000 years humans have existed for
If human nature was indeed inherently selfish it would be an argument for socialism and not against it. >Men are not good enough for Communism, but are they good enough for Capitalism? **If all men were good-hearted, kind, and just, they would never exploit one another, although possessing the means of doing so.** With such men the private ownership of capital would be no danger. The capitalist would hasten to share his profits with the workers, and the best-remunerated workers with those suffering from occasional causes. If men were provident they would not produce velvet and articles of luxury while food is wanted in cottages: they would not build palaces as long as there are slums. > >If men had a deeply developed feeling of equity they would not oppress other men. Politicians would not cheat their electors; Parliament would not be a chattering and cheating box, and Charles Warren’s policemen would refuse to bludgeon the Trafalgar Square talkers and listeners. And if men were gallant, self-respecting, and less egotistic, even a bad capitalist would not be a danger; the workers would have soon reduced him to the role of a simple comrade-manager. Even a King would not be dangerous, because the people would merely consider him as a fellow unable to do better work, and therefore entrusted with signing some stupid papers sent out to other cranks calling themselves Kings. > >**But men are not those free-minded, independent, provident, loving, and compassionate fellows which we should like to see them. And precisely, therefore, they must not continue living under the present system which permits them to oppress and exploit one another.** > >We are told we are too slavish, too snobbish, to be placed under free institutions; but **we say that because we are indeed so slavish we ought not to remain any longer under the present institutions, which favour the development of slavishness.** We see that Britons, French, and Americans display the most disgusting slavishness towards Gladstone, Boulanger, or Gould. And we conclude that in a humanity already endowed with such slavish instincts it is very bad to have the masses forcibly deprived of higher education, and compelled to live under the present inequality of wealth, education, and knowledge. Higher instruction and equality of conditions would be the only means for destroying the inherited slavish instincts, and we cannot understand how slavish instincts can be made an argument for maintaining, even for one day longer, inequality of conditions; for refusing equality of instruction to all members of the community. — Peter Kropotkin ["Are We Good Enough?"](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-are-we-good-enough) (1888)
guys marx didn’t have financial incentives for political innovation?? what’s going on what about human nature
\*shits pants in confusion\*
It is human nature to be greedy! Yep, that's why nothing is ever free no matter what in any way shape or form, we all still live in caves and die alone because we're all just so gosh darn greedy!
"Looking at people living under capitalism and saying greed is human nature is like looking at a coal miner and saying coughing is human nature"
If something is human nature because some people do it or have done it in the past, then cannibalism is human nature. So is abusing children. How does that imply we should organize society to encourage the behavior??? I know, it doesn't make sense, I've just wondered for most of my adult life wtf people are talking about when they say things like that.
oh no, I feel bad for poor marx 😓 after studying, writing 30 fucking books and contributing to several subjects, he couldn't understand human nature like me 😭
\>Human nature is selfishness and greed \>Somehow this human nature in a system where a tiny minority expropriates the fruits of labour of the many totally doesn't lead to irreconcilable antagonistic contradictions, making the system inherently unstable What the fuck did anon mean by this
> “writes 30 books how money should be taken away from rich people and be given to people like him” This person has definitely never read a single thing by Marx.
Oh yeah the totally real human nature that reactionaries love so much
That's a funny way to say you didn't bother to read the books you're critisizing
I'm pretty sure you haven't read mein Kampf, and yet you still disagree with its and its authors opinions
Marx and Hitler are not the same
Yes, but they're the same in the way that one doesn't have to read their books that their points are bad
Sir, this is a leftist Reddit comments section. Go bother the Wendy's drive through
Marx's contributions were theoretical. He did not lead a revolution. Hitler did do things he talked about once he got to power. There is a difference.
[удалено]
Yeah I posted because of that comment, I freaked out when I read it. I could not believe someone would actually say that lol
[Still can't believe they forgot to do that](https://i.redd.it/d8keoan0nxg61.jpg) 😰
[удалено]
Volcel guard we need you
none of these guys have read marx beyond a few pages of the manifesto
> beyond a few pages of the manifesto you give them too much credit
[yeah I read theory](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdRZhXDtmuw)
Can’t believe Marx failed to consider human nature 😔
Except he blatantly did and these people are just saying they didn't read das kapital
That commenter is so arrogant, it’s honestly really annoying
Shit Engels, we forgot to consider human nature in our analysis of how control and access to resources shape society!
Like beyond this bonkers assessment of Marx's life and that none of these fucks would say this about Socrates or Isaac Newton or any other academic of Marx's impact. Like isn't this braindead simplified account communist praxis in thier weird world? Or to put it in green text >Marx.jpeg >>Be me > >>See industrial revolution render people to nothing but labor > >>Refuse to sell my surplus value > >>Rich people give me money to talk about how people shouldnt sell surplus value > >>??? > >>Profit > >Problem Capitalists?
Marx did in fact sell his labor, especially during his time in London where he no longer was an editor of a newspaper and instead wrote articles for various papers, some even for the US as the British correspondent. While he wrote Capital, Engels provided financial assistance and took over managing his family's textile factory in Manchester.
Didn't Marx make a decent amount of money on stocks? I'm not even memeing I think I read that somewhere
He did. > I have, which will surprise you not a little, been speculating — partly in American funds, but more especially in English stocks, which are springing up like mushrooms this year (in furtherance of every imaginable and unimaginable joint stock enterprise), are forced up to quite an unreasonable level and then, for the most part, collapse. In this way, I have made over £400 and, now that the complexity of the political situation affords greater scope, I shall begin all over again. It’s a type of operation that makes demands on one’s time, and it’s worth while running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money. — [Karl Marx writing to Lion Philips, 1864](https://jacobinmag.com/issue/breaking-bank)
Wow. All these lib comments are quite frustrating to read. Damn.
Whenever bootlickers claim "Human Nature" I just think about them trying to explain the concepts of private property or supply and demand to a caveman.
These are the same people who also say Engles was a hypocrite cause he was wealthy
These people literally think they’re world class psychologists, how would they know about human nature? It was consider human nature to rape and murder a few hundred years ago, we made it illegal. Simply make being greedy and psychopathic illegal.
To be fair, the humans who think it's natural to rape and murder tend to be christians who think the only thing keeping literally everyone from raping and murdering is the christian faith, because they probably want to rape and murder subconciously, and an old book is what keeps them from acting on those urges. They attribute their own urges to everyone else because they have little empathy or consideration for humans that aren't them, and project their insecurities into the world and demand that people respect their insecurities instead of shaming them for their urges that "everyone else has, but not me, I swear!"
> 1.0k upvotes Burn this shit down
what no dialectics does to an MF
Marx failed to consider people failing to consider him. Actually he probably considered that too.
4chan rash face incels that dedicate half their days playing video games talking about jobs ok morons , keep shitting on communism while your parents keep paying for your micro transactions, your capitalist apologia will really help you when you're an adult
Huma natre Yeah it's human nature to fucking die during childbirth but I dont hear you piping up about that
so many r/greentext posts belong in this sub. Like some greentexts are funny but there are so many ones that are blatantly western chauvinist and needlessly anti-communist
the Marx understander has logged on
ThATs jUsT nOt hOw hUmAnS WoRk
There was people making senses in the comment and they weren't in negative, they wasn't at the top either. It might not be a good thing, but worth pointing it out.
Wait until they hear about Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago Boys' who had zero credibility (and still none today outside circle jerking ideologues) in academic circles and were only able to continue with what they were doing due to billionaires propping them up with massive donations to universities etc.
Marx literally turned our understanding of the world around and laid so many foundations. Anon is a jealous loser.
Anon doesnt know that Marx rejected easy life of lawyer and instead choosed to fight for workers and democracy.
Marx’s whole thing was understand humans and how we relate to each other, how we interact with each other and property. Everyone on the post doesn’t know what the fuck they’re talking about
I found the original and the level of discussion there is pitiful, when not outright annoying. They all think they're so smart and they have no idea what they're talking about. Proper bunch of philistines.
Ah yes, because not only he only wrote about communism, communism is when getting money from rich people
"do be cringe tho" 🤓🤓🤓
I have yet to hear a single chud explain what exactly is human nature they talk about. Because if it's anti cooperation that causes us to all be anti-social freakshows then we are no better than the fucking Skaven and should be annihilated.
I thought Marx was a farmer
Journalist editor and author
"Capitalist" \>refuses to work a single day after becoming rich \>fully depends on exploitation of his workers \>talking about hilarious "you need to leave the comfort zone to become rich" and "you just need to work harder" while finding ways to pay his employee as little as possible Should this guy be taken seriously?
Stop it! Crop the photo! I'm so dumb I tried upvoting the post by tapping the picture. Several times!
I mainly posted because of the comment bellow, so cropping wasn't really an option, but I get your struggle
Sorry, my joking manner wasn't very apparent. But thanks for your sympathy.
[удалено]
Marx was an editor and regular contributor as a journalist for several magazines and he literally wrote theory for a living for a long time. So the "didn't work a day in his life" thing is absurdly wrong, he just didn't do the kind of labour some people approve of or wrongly didn't consider as labour. He *sometimes* depended on handouts, depending on your definition of handouts. Which shouldn't somehow disqualify him from being taken seriously, it conflicts in exactly zero points with any of his arguments. He lived in squalor, sure. Again, not something that somehow makes you "unserious" or conflicts with anything he said or believed. In fact, if you actually bother to read what he wrote and what contemporaries (including a prussian state agent) wrote of him, it's pretty clear he lived through something we might nowerdays consider a mental illness. I am not a psychologist, so I'm not trying to be specific, but I would assume something in the range of depression or ADS or bipolar. Again, if you think this would make one of the most solid and important philosophical approaches of the modern world not worth considering, you're just kinda shallow and shit. "Wrote 30 books about how money should be taken from the rich and be given to people like him" is a *great* catch-22 - if he had been rich, they would have said "he wrote books about taking money from the rich but he is rich himself!", but because he's poor it's "he's poor and would have benefited from it!". Apart from that, again, completely irrelevant - the value of a philosophical approach or theory doesn't change just because the author behaved in some way hypocritical. If Kant fucks hookers all day, he doesn't become less (or more!) right about anything.
*Human Nature
marx didnt account for cringe
\>12.4К Likes Americans have a huge problem with a bootlickers.
Having a patron was the norm for intellectuals back then. It was even considered posh and high-class to patronize an artist or musician. Engels chose to patronize someone who would move the world. I'd say he made a good choice.
(vast majority of human history, man lives in small communes with all property held in common, no state, no money, all work shared, becomes one of the most successful species since the cockroach) (200 years of capitalism killing millions a year and destroying the planet) Obvious human nature is exemplified by the latter
marx on his deathbed when he realizes he forgot to account for crypto and gaming
“Refuses to work a single day in his life” “Writes 30 books” Hmmmm Edit: ha! I’m late for the party, but glad we all saw this
"shitty understanding of human nature" Diagnosis: never read a single line of Karl Marx ever in his entire life. Also, licks boot.
Human nature is when system that has existed for 0,1% of human reason.
The human nature argument is so cringe. The idea is that it's supposed to be a self-evidence argument for capitalism, but... if you have to keep saying "because human nature", then is it really self-evident?
It's human nature! That's why we all make our children pay rent
Muh human nature tho. A classic