LowReady

If I'm not mistaken, Marx at one point stated that in his very time the UK had sufficient material conditions for The Revolution to happen however The Proletariat had not achieved sufficient Class Consciousness. If material conditions are already indeed sufficient, how will you determine when Class Consciousness has reached critical mass to start murdering Capitalists?

And before you start misusing the term "straw man", you will indeed have to threaten and kill capitalists.... Power is not surrendered from the powerful voluntarily and The Capitalist has no reason to want to surrender his capital.

So given it's been about two centuries since Marx declared material conditions were suffici

In short, socialists have created a problem allegedly specific to capitalism in order to declare that they've created a solution.

We need to not only answer "what is hierarchy" but what is the conceptual importance of hierarchy. This requires a whole lot of unpacking that I probably won't do and will leave open to discussion however... What is the conceptual importance of hierarchy but a way to describe the limiting conditions of personal autonomy?

So to cut to the chase, what additional autonomy does the necessity of satisfying a collective and making them value my vote grant me that the necessity of satisfying a smaller group of employer's not? Socialists love to use the words

Please make your own argument demonstrating that you are entitled to the widgets and/ or profit you help produce and The Capitalist isn't.

When Adolf Capitalist buys a factory, buys and maintains a widget-machine, and establishes demand for Adolf's Widgets, why does The Worker who comes in and pushed a button on the widget machine entitled to anything produced?

As far as I can tell it's been run by socialist pinciples, it's never had a group of vangaurd revolutionaries trying to go Full Communism, and it's never had a bunch of evil capitalists crushing it to steal their labor and resources.... It still remains little more than a drug riddled hippie shithole full of vandalized hovels that produce nothing.

Given that almost every socialist here seems to believe that coops are more productive and that people would just produce things they need without capitalist intrusion, why does Christiania produce literally nothing other than drug ovrerdoses and vandalizism?

Also why aren't you moving there? They've achieved equality and mostly live off welfar

None of these arrangements actually seem to solve the problems of privatization or labor exploitation... They are what I like to call "SJW Capitalism", basically just markets, wages, and private property managed to the ends of equality and egalitarianism. Do socialists not actually understand the fundamental principles of anti-capitalism?

Socialists, why aren't you advocating for full communism and total collectivization of all means of production rather than just democratic and unionized worker-management of private property?

When The Worker produces an item that becomes a capital good, does his labor value end at the point of exchsnge? A capital good generally continues to create a profit and the new Worker using the widget machine certainly didn't build it, he may only push the widget-making button on it... Why should the button pusher be entitled to the profit from these widgets but not The Worker who literally assembled the machine enabling him to easily produce widgets?

Clearly the answer to this determines why The Capitalist is or isn't entitled to the profits from his capital.

In the true spirit of capitalism, I'd like to publicly offer to undercut this silly offer the bribe mods so that I can profit.

I guess we'll see how serious socialists are about their attempts to uphold their deals and participate in the market or if it's just the usual empty virtue signaling hoping that their fellow-socialists will remain dishonest enough to support any blatant lie as long as it's showing meaningless rhetorical support for your cult.

Several times this week we've seen socialists claim that Soviet production was an example of how productive and progressive socialism can be. This seems to directly contradict the near-universal claim by socialists that the Soviets were not at all socialist, rather completely capitalist.

How do you reconcile the claim that the Soviets weren't socialist with the claim that Soviet production was an example of socialism working?

What communist principles did the Soviets follow to create such productive progress?

It's quite surprising to me to see so many socialists critical of Austrian econ not on the basis of its axioms (which are essentially all accepted as valid in modern economics), but on the basis of its methods. The only methodological analysis that I'm aware socialists have ever offered is dialectical materialism....

A - If you accept material dialectics as "scientific", can you explain how it follows the scientific process and presents testable, replicable ideas in ways that the Austrians have not?

B - Are you aware that Austrians have been analyzing and writing about the history of economics since at least Bawerk? It seems like socialists might actually believe that Austrian economist

....and how does this mechanism that protects your vacant house not also potentially protect "absentee ownership" given capitalism requires a state?

.... Or even part of the petite bourgeoise? All it takes is a well-planned bachelor's degree (in other words any degree where credits from Marxist Studies and Intersectional Feminism don't count) to get a paycheck where you can easily save enough money to be a capitalist. Get a well planned Masters and you'll be clearing six figures quickly.

inb4 1: "oh but I'm not privileged enough to afford school". Bullshit. This is a lie that needs to be laid to rest. I'm not going into detail but I paid for my first two degrees with menial labor, student loans, and picking cheap schools while earning money making degrees. If you "can't afford school" you're talking about paid-for community college whi