Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[WEATHER53]

Equitable is a fairness feelings thing
Equality is recognizable

 

[dblack]

Equitable is a fairness feelings thing
Equality is recognizable

It's a false dichotomy - a diversion. The issue isn't equality vs equity. Our Constitution promises neither. It does, however, guarantee us equal rights. And "equity" is the exact opposite.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Yep. You can pay someone else to do the work for you, though you'll make far less money (they'll take their cut first). But the work still needs to get done. And you better choose someone who will make productive decisions on what to do with that money, or they'll lose it on your behalf.

The dirty little secret that commies won't acknowledge is that there are capitalists in their system too. Every large economy requires them. Someone must make decisions regarding the allocation of capital and labor. In a free market, these decisions are made by private investors. They're driven by profit. If they allocate the money in ways that provide society with the thing it wants and needs, they'll make money. If the don't, they'll lose money. They have a stake in the outcome of their decisions.

In a state-run economy, these decisions are made by government employees. They have little stake in the outcome, other than keeping their job, and motivations are more likely to be political, rather than driven by the needs and wants of consumers.

You can pay someone else to do the work for you, though you'll make far less money (they'll take their cut first).

You don't make much less, you make more. They're professional traders, unlike you. They will manage your investment money, and your financial advisors will guide you on what real estate and other hard assets you can invest in to keep your wealth safe and growing. That's what smart multimillionaires and billionaires do, unlike you of course, who would probably lose all of his money, refusing to hire well-experienced professionals with a long track record of successful estate management.

But the work still needs to get done. And you better choose someone who will make productive decisions on what to do with that money, or they'll lose it on your behalf.

Who in their right mind wouldn't want to be in such a privileged position, as having so much wealth that you have professional financial advisors and investment firms managing it? I would rather be in that position than be an employee working for an hourly wage, living paycheck to paycheck.

The dirty little secret that commies won't acknowledge is that there are capitalists in their system too.

A "little secret" for you, is that we National Socialists, don't identify as communists, and recognize that markets have their place until technology warrants eliminating them. Even Marxist communists recognize that markets should be allowed to exist until conditions warrant otherwise. Eventually, technology eliminates the need for markets and private property, forcing society to adopt a highly automated, marketless system of production.

Private property is all property that is used to exploit human labor for a profit, whereas personal property is all property that us for personal use. Your house, car, plot of land, rifle collection, smart phone, computer/s, your fishing boat..etc, all of that can be personal property. Your personal property is more secure with us than it is under capitalism. Under capitalism you can lose your house if you fail to pay your property taxes. In socialism you'll never lose your house/s or land/s because you failed to pay property taxes. Your personal property is even ore secure and your standard of living will be higher, thanks to advanced technology.

Every large economy requires them.

Until technology automates jobs, eliminating wages, then that's the end of markets and capitalism. Moreover, the consumer can choose to make the state the "capitalist" or employer. Another possibility which you're not mentioning, is that the so-called "capitalists" can be comprised of worker-owned and run cooperatives. The business enterprises are run collectively, and owned by the workers who work it. They hold elections to elect their managers. etc. The profits are divided amongst the workers. Workers are much more important than capitalists.

​

Someone must make decisions regarding the allocation of capital and labor. In a free market, these decisions are made by private investors.

Those who own the business enterprise decide what happens to the profits. When one is a mere employee, working for a capitalist master, the owner/s of the company own everything you produce and pocket the profits for themselves. That's capitalism, without socialism. In socialism that allows capitalists to exist, the profits can be divided between the investors and the workers who produce everything for the investors. Tthe investors take monetary risks and the workers take their own risks as well, in the form of labor.

Working with machinery that can seriously injure or even kill you, is a risk. ​

They're driven by profit. If they allocate the money in ways that provide society with the thing it wants and needs, they'll make money. If the don't, they'll lose money. They have a stake in the outcome of their decisions.

The workers also have a stake in it, because that's their livelihood.

In a state-run economy, these decisions are made by government employees.

Not necessarily. It depends on how much state control there is over the economy. If the state is in full control, of a modern economy, then government officials and advanced artificial intelligence, in collaboration with the workers plan and make decisions. The state coordinates and collaborates with the people in the field. Furthermore, the workers can have more control and power over how their workplace is run and what happens to the products they produce, than under neo-liberal capitalism.

They have little stake in the outcome, other than keeping their job, and motivations are more likely to be political, rather than driven by the needs and wants of consumers.

One could just as well say that the private owners of the company are just interested in their profits, not so much in the needs of the consumer. Remember that the workers are the main consumers and do have a stake in the company because it's their means of subsistence. Without their jobs, they don't eat.

It behooves capitalists to pay their workers well because these are the same people who are going to buy the products and services of the capitalists.

 

[dblack]

You don't make much less, you make more. They're professional traders, unlike you. They will manage your investment money, and your financial advisors will guide you on what real estate and other hard assets you can invest in to keep your wealth safe and growing. That's what smart multimillionaires and billionaires do, unlike you of course, who would probably lose all of his money, refusing to hire well-experienced professionals with a long track record of successful estate management.



Who in their right mind wouldn't want to be in such a privileged position, as having so much wealth that you have professional financial advisors and investment firms managing it. I would rather be in that position than be an employee working for an hourly wage, living paycheck to paycheck.



A "little secret" for you, is that we National Socialists, don't identify as communists, and recognize that markets have their place until technology warrants eliminating them. Even Marxist communists recognize that markets should be allowed to exist until conditions warrant otherwise. Eventually, technology eliminates the need for markets and private property, forcing society to adopt a highly automated, marketless system of production.

Private property is all property that is used to exploit human labor for a profit, whereas personal property is all property that us for personal use. Your house, car, plot of land, rifle collection, smart phone, computer/s, your fishing boat..etc, all of that can be personal property. Your personal property is more secure with us than it is under capitalism. Under capitalism you can lose your house if you fail to pay your property taxes. In socialism you'll never lose your house/s or land/s because you failed to pay property taxes. Your personal property is even ore secure and your standard of living will be higher, thanks to advanced technology.



Until technology automates jobs, eliminating wages, then that's the end of markets and capitalism. Moreover, the consumer can choose to make the state the "capitalist" or employer. Another possibility which you're not mentioning, is that the so-called "capitalists" can be comprised of worker-owned and run cooperatives. The business enterprises are run collectively, and owned by the workers who work it. They hold elections to elect their managers. etc. The profits are divided amongst the workers. Workers are much more important than capitalists.

View attachment 986527​

Those who own the business enterprise decide what happens to the profits. When one is a mere employee, working for a capitalist master, the owner/s of the company own everything you produce and pocket the profits for themselves. That's capitalism, without socialism. In socialism that allows capitalists to exist, the profits can be divided between the investors and the workers who produce everything for the investors. Tthe investors take monetary risks and the workers take their own risks as well, in the form of labor.

View attachment 986536

Working with machinery that can seriously injure or even kill you, is a risk. ​

The workers also have a stake in it, because that's their livelihood.



Not necessarily. It depends on how much state control there is over the economy. If the state is in full control, of a modern economy, then government officials and advanced artificial intelligence, in collaboration with the workers plan and make decisions. The state coordinates and collaborates with the people in the field. Furthermore, the workers can have more control and power over how their workplace is run and what happens to the products they produce, than under neo-liberal capitalism.



One could just as well say that the private owners of the company are just interested in their profits, not so much in the needs of the consumer. Remember that the workers are the main consumers and do have a stake in the company because it's their means of subsistence. Without their jobs, they don't eat.

It behooves capitalists to pay their workers well because these are the same people who are going to buy the products and services of the capitalists.

And now you open up the gish gallop firehose of commie propaganda. To fuck yourself, ****.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I’m not his cashier, but think what you want. And no he doesn’t need to but he enjoys the interaction and saves money by doing so not to mention the headache of hiring training only to have to do so every so often in a high turnover industry. He also does his own landscaping of his store and plaza, he also buys things and spends $ on his own expenses and taxes and frivolous things as well but according to you only the slaves are consumers…

No according to me, both the working class and capitalists, rely on wages. As I already explained, your beloved capitalist master, wouldn't have an income if people weren't purchasing his products. How do you think people purchase his products? With their wages. Capitalism is built upon wages, without it there's no market or paying consumer. Even the capitalists who consume, rely upon the profits generated by the wages earned by their customers. No wages = no paying customers = no market capitalism. Capitalism is built upon human wage-labor.

 

[TruthNotBS]

And now you open up the gish gallop firehose of commie propaganda. To fuck yourself, ****.

You don't win a debate by simply rage-quitting after insulting your opponent. ​

 

[dblack]

View attachment 986553​

Trolling for triggers, eh?

How do they pay you? It's too much. You suck pretty bad.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Trolling for triggers, eh?

How do they pay you? It's too much. You suck pretty bad.

Rage quitting or resorting to personal attacks, and cheap ad hominems, only reveals the weakness of your position. You're unable to refute my arguments so you blow up and start flinging insults. How about you just discard your bad arguments and become a socialist? That's what I did when I was in your position a few years ago. I didn't insult my opponent, I just learned something new and adopted a new way of thinking. That's what smart people do.

 

[dblack]

Rage quitting or resorting to personal attacks, and cheap ad hominems, only reveals the weakness of your position.

You're a paid propagandist. I'm not reading, much less taking seriously, the firehose of horseshit you post on here.

Also, what are you still doing here? Didn't I tell you to go fuck yourself?

 

[TruthNotBS]

You're a paid propagandist. I'm not reading, much less taking seriously, the firehose of horseshit you post on here.

Also, what are you still doing here? Didn't I tell you to go fuck yourself?

 

[dblack]

View attachment 986560​

Is that your goal? Troll is as troll does.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Is that your goal? Troll is as troll does.

It's obvious that it's not my goal. It's not my fault that you're getting triggered and rage-quiting. You're not winning a debate by hurling insults at me and claiming I'm getting paid to post here. I'm not getting paid a dime, I wish I was, however, if that were the case, my arguments still stand or fall on their own merits. Getting paid doesn't automatically render one's arguments incorrect, do you realize that?

 

[dblack]

It's obvious that it's not my goal.

It obviously is.

Tell you what, you quit posting all the propaganda memes (maybe just give us a link to your source) and I'll quit picking on you. Deal?

 

[TruthNotBS]

It obviously is.

Tell you what, you quit posting all the propaganda memes (maybe just give us a link to your source) and I'll quit picking on you. Deal?

I have many sources, but everything I said is a well-established fact and hence easily verifiable. When I say that capitalism relies on wages or wage labor, that's a fact. Labor produces goods and services and the money that customers use to purchase those goods and services. Without human wage labor, and paying consumers who purchase everything with their wages, there's no market, hence no capitalism or capitalists. I don't need to cite scholars or encyclopedias for that. I could, but anyone with a simple google search can verify for themselves, the importance of wages.

If advanced automation and artificial intelligence replace most jobs, as it will in the near future, then society is forced by necessity to adopt a marketless, non-profit, rationally planned, system of mass production. That's just common sense.