Help me troll this Bernie shill Yas Forums

>only I fuck her
I seriously doubt that.

Pretty sure this is a chatbot

Attached: RobotFail.webm (720x404, 1.81M)

Fake and gay

>SkyNet's childhood trauma
kek

(OP)
you're getting your shit slapped.

Yes dipshit, a robot is navigating a conversation that well and giving tailored responses like that

Attached: lol5.jpg (480x480, 13.05K)

bingo

>Goodnight ANONAMANIACS and jabronie OP marks without a life that don't know it a troll when you troll a troll and troll yourself into a shoot,marks

Left:

> Capitalism fucks us all and metaphorically turns all workers who support it into cuckolds (Marx actually used that analogy 150 years before the right picked up on it)

Right:

> B-b-but NIGGERS

I don't believe in racial equality bs, but when leftists say that fascism acts as the last defense of capitalism, this is kind of what they mean

ask him how he justifies that bernie is against nuclear energy while calling himself progressive

capitalism is the most fair system though from a philosophical standpoint, thats why so many people defend it. Nobody is arguing that more people would live a better life if we rob the rich and give it to the poor. It's just inherently wrong and unjust, thats why so many oppose socialism. All life is selfish.

>extreme wealth inequality is inherently right, just and fair

Ok bootlicker

You are so wrong I can;t even tell you how wrong you are without having to explain several college credits worth of concepts to you first.

in a nutshell, Capitalism is only about 200 years old. There is nothing natural or fair about it. It has always been about alienating labor and maximizing profits for the capitalist class.

What was before capitalism?

kings n shit

This right here is temporarily embarrassed millionaire syndrome. You say all life is selfish, and I would concur, but you in fact sacrifice your own self interest and that of everybody like on the altar of that of an elite clique who've sold you on the lie that you have a chance to be like them. In other words, cucking for them.

Depends on where we're talking. Most of the world aside from the Americas operated under a tributary mode of production.

Tell him you've been having sex with his mom for 15 years. That'll psyche him out

You're totally missing the point i tried to explain. The result of capitalism, extreme wealth inequality as you put it, isn't fair at all. The concept, or thought behind it so to say, is though. Those two things aren't necessarily connected. Capitalism is fair on a philosophical level because a capitalistic governement treats everyone equally. A socialistic one does not, although it leads to better results. That is what i want you to understand, i dont even try to argue in favour of capitalism here, just trying to explain why so many oppose it. It goes against basic human instincts.

In which ways is capitalism different than a tributary system and in which ways is it less natural than other systems?

>a capitalistic governement treats everyone equally. A socialistic one does not

The absolute state of mutt education

I don't think you understand the basic concept of socialism m8

A socialistic government forcibly redistributes wealth from those who have it in abundace to those in need, therefore it treats those two parties differently. A capitalistic government just does nothing to either, therefore treating them equally.

Therefore the rich get richer and the poor get poorer until the system collapses. Then the cycle repeats itself. This is basic knowledge dude.

this is why there needs to be some kind of fusion of socialism and capitalism.
give the people every opportunity to get richer in knowledge that their richness means richness of all.
privileges must be given to those who bring society further.
privileges must be given to those wo want to bring society further but cant due to circumstances.
people who leech and have no intention of sharing their workpower or wisdom with society need to be prevented.

it treats both parties financally differently to achieve humane equality

lmao you're talking as though being wealthy or not wealthy are arbitrary, essentialist and natural categories like right and left handed people or something.

I never argued with that man, read my posts again. I agree that the resulting inequality of wealth is not fair.

It does not though, as much as a system can "treat" people. The only representation of the current system we have is the government enforcing it, and a capitalistic government literally treats everyone financially equally. I see what you're trying to say but it's not the government who treats people differently, it's life itself (or reality if you prefer that)

>Tributary
You own your ox, plow, and land and you pay a tribute to whoever has political or military power over you and your land.
>Capitalism
You don't own anything and the only thing you have is your labor value. Only capitalists own the means of production and you have to sell your labor value (time) in order to survive.

Very simplified explanation of course.

Capitalism is unnatural because it operates on a number of contradictions.
>It profits from cheap labor and cheap extraction of resources. When there are no cheap resources left capitalism will "fail" and become something different. (Marx says we'll descend into barbarism).
>It requires an exponentially increasing rate of production and consumption making it fundamentally unsustainable and prone to eventually collapse given that we live in a world with finite resources.
Think of how the primary sign of success for a business under capitalism is increased growth. A company has to continually grow to survive and the only way of doing this is to produce more goods at a cheaper price which prioritizes cheap to extract natural resources. As resource extraction is pushed to the peripheries and becomes more expensive, prices rise but wages do not. Capitalism needs cheap labor to grow especially amid rising costs of resource extraction but it also relies on labor to purchase its goods. When there are no cheap resources left, prices rise, and labor can no longer afford to buy the goods it produces. It's unnatural because it fundamentally cannot work in the long term.

Attached: 1583370415101.jpg (719x703, 113.03K)

Now you're deflecting, how does it matter if it is arbitrary or not? I simply stated a fact.

>everyone who wants healthcare and legalized weed is a shill!!!!!!

OP is too retarded to realize he’s the one being trolled

I agree

Do not agree. Gas noncontributors. The biggest redpill is that your IQ is a greater predictor of your adult income than your parents' income. Poor people, by and large, aren't poor by chance.

ah yes, as opposed to those very stable socialist systems that have traditionally lasted for a long time

This is so facile. A company does not have to continually grow to survive. As long as profits exceed costs, the company is solvent and will continue to make money. No growth necessary.

Socialism operates from the position that belonging to the capitalist class does not make you inherently superior in some biological or metaphysical way or vice versa. So then why do you automatically deserve to have the wealth you have from the exploitation of other people's labour? Why shouldn't they go "fuck you, we're taking that back"?

>BuT sOcIalIsm HaS nEvEr BeEn tRuLy TrIeD B4

>"radicals"

Yes because why the fuck would shareholders want more growth/profits/dividends when they can just be happy with making less money?
>said no one ever

What's preventing you from owning something under capitalism other than poverty? Also in which way do you think capitalism is more to blame for less property ownership than the rise and growth of technology making land ownership less needed.
Other "leftleaning" systems like communism seemed to very much want to discourage private land and property ownership, so it must something more beyond just capitalism?

Also I still don't understand how capitalism is any more or less "unnatural" than any other system; what, in your mind, makes a system "natural".
There's plenty of things in nature that we could consider unfair by our modern standards, so that can't be the only metric.

This is the prime problem with socialism. It is predicated on the idea that one must exploit to be successful, which is patently not the case. Bill Gates didn't exploit anyone by having an excellent idea and business acumen- if anything he raised others' fortunes by allowing them to share in his company, either as owners, or as employees.

I really hope you're a wealthy person. If not, your post is very ironic and almost funny.

Growth being the primary sign of success for a business doesn't mean it's necessary to survive. All industries growing larger and larger is a result of basic human psychology, ie greed and not part of capitalism. Your grouping several problems of human society together with capitalism, blaming it for everything. Capitalism literally just means treating everyone financially equally, nothing more.

No doubt, but a company is not required to grow to be profitable.

Probably wealthier than nearly everyone on this board, but that's pretty immaterial to my statement, which is factual.

>Capitalism literally just means treating everyone financially equally, nothing more.

I've heard that definition before. I think you just made it up. Did you a know a billionaire can do the same crime as you but serve much less time? This is very well documented. Shocking isn't it.

>"gas noncontributers"

Yes, very factual. Not an opinion at all. You're so smart, you deserve all the money.

well if a person with an iq sufficient enough to get rich uses that potential to actually do it, why should the person keep everything for itself?
the person that just got rich benefited and benefits from society, therefore there should be a symbiotic thinking. if the fkn fungus in the forest grounds gets its hands on more nutrients then it will pass that % on to the tree roots in knowledge that it will get more sugar back (because more sugar can be stored in the roots due to more nutrients being available).

transfer that stupid picture on to society. you (the fungus) gets rich (gets more nutrients) and gives a share of it to society (tree roots), gets more sugar (privileges) back.
why should the fungus keep the nutrients for itself, let parts of the root system starve, weaken the whole system and eventually get less sugar out of the symbiotic relationship? you dont know? idk either.
i dont understand how people that can afford a certain stability and wealth in life are contra boosting potential newcomers that would benefit society even more than they did on their own.
fund potential

Lol the guy is totally outplaying you dumbass

I'd hazard a guess that billionaires commit crimes at a rate far lower than people in society's lowest strata. Did you know that blacks in poverty commit many times the rate of violent crime that whites in poverty do?

You're still missing the point. The point is that a capitalistic government doesn't distribute wealth in any way, therfore not "assuming" anyone "deserves" anything. You take what you can get and government doesn't mess with that, therfore giving everyone equal chances.

I was referring to the relationship of IQ to income, which is very poignant considering
>does not make you inherently superior in some biological...
which is exactly the case.

Both commit crimes, billionaires dont get caught and prosecuted. U dum

>why should the person keep everthing
Because it was their idea and they're the impetus behind the growth. Your average 70iq factory worker does not have the bandwidth to come up with ideas like that.

1) No one is entitled to anyone else's labor. IF you don't want to work for a rich man, then don't. Go live in the woods and be self-sufficient.

2) They're not hoarding money in a bathtub like scrooge mcduck. It's largely tied up in the companies themselves. Bezos for example, likely has very little solvent cash- the majority of his wealth is in the form of a company that he created.

op just got his shit rocked by someone being paid to text him and he doesn't realize it.

Lel not even close to the same rates, my friend. Go look at the crime stats by income level- it's eye-opening. And it's not even crimes of desperation, it's things like rape and murder too.

You're assuming these people actually think or care about other humans.

> Thank you so much Bill Gates for giving me this opportunity to work soul destroying 12 hour shifts doing a task that gives me no fulfillment for minimum wage (which wouldn't even exist if it hadn't been for labour activists a century ago) in order to keep a roof over my head I am eternally grateful for your beneficence

More cappo bootlicking

You are never going to be Bill Gates. Stop cucking for him.

Show me the law than that states that billionaires. They do simply because they have better lawyers who they can afford because they have more wealth. The government didn't give them their wealth. You're just further proving that you're missing the point. The point is that government isn't responsible for everything in reality. It isn't responsible for some being more capable than others and therefore achieving more. Life simply isn't fair and robbing the rich to give it to the poor isn't going to make it better on a purely philosophical level.

These fucking threads suck so much cock. They can eaily be faked.

Then don't work for him you fucking dimwit. I'm not Bill gates, but I'm using him as the most extreme example. Don't like him? Go create your own wealth. No one is forcing anyone to work for him. That's the beauty of capitalism. You have a choice. Work for him if you want, or don't. Go be a hermit and survive on your own.

I see that there is no point arguing with you since you're clearly operating on the premise that life owes you something. It doesn't.