You need to be a Capitalist or else you’re not a man.

You need to be a Capitalist or else you’re not a man.


Thanks for your submission, ExpertAccident! Please remember to censor out any identifying details and that satire is only allowed on weekends. If this post is truly gatekeeping, upvote it! If it's not gatekeeping or if it breaks any other rules, downvote this comment and REPORT the post so we can see it! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gatekeeping) if you have any questions or concerns.*




"..... You're a socialist" That's the news, right?


Men didn't exist prior to the invention of capitalism in the 1400s. Common knowledge.


One day, bam, dicks everywhere


I mean technically.....


Damn, today I learnt that whatever the Mesopotapians were doing with their exchange of goods for money or the system of debt they made (system that is the reason we invented writing to remember who owes what to who) was not a form of proto-capitalism. And neither was what the Greeks, the Egyptians, Chinese or the Romans doing. Capitalism, apparently, wasn't a thing before it was theorized. I mean, modern capitalism wasn't really a thing before the 14th century, but what people were doing before still looks like a primitive form of capitalism.


Marx invented capitalism. Before him it was just business as usual.


I'd argue that capitalism wasn't invented by anyone, unlike other socioeconomic principles and doctrines. Instead it's the "free markets", whatever may that distinction entail, that lead to our current trading system and was just given a name that doesn't exactly represent it, for simplicity when it comes to theory expansion on it and general discussion. Tldr: We gave the natural yet historic evolution of trading a name and ascribed certain ideologies to it and called it capitalism in order to bring it head to head with other ideologies, and that's kind of dumb in more than one sense.


You could make a similar argument for any socioeconomic system. They are all, by definition, a byproduct of anthropology. You could argue that slavery, as a socioeconomic system, arose from classist civilizations, or that feudalism thrived on the religious favouritism of catholic priests. You could even argue that communism, which was invented by Marx, arises naturally, perhaps in the form of a revolution, in a society where the workers are over exploited. In that narrative, Marx merely formalized the communist economic theory, the same way Smith formalized capitalist theory. What I am trying to say is: All socioeconomic systems seem equally 'natural' to me, and the natural origin of an entity should not be an argument for or against the entity.


I'd argue that in case of Marx, the system itself was never seen before as a concept nor discussed much. So it differs greatly from the standpoint of a natural evolution since in it of itself originates greatly from his theories. As for slavery, in all its forms, even to this present day and age in some countries, I'd put it under tha roof of labor through exploitation more than economics. Even though it greatly ties unto the latter. Personally I tend to make greater distinctions between naturally formed systems and those who stemmed mainly from the creation of socioeconomic theories and had little to no precedents. As for whether that is an argument that benefits any type of entity or system. To put it simply, no matter how detailed a theory is, chaos will change its workings and shift the end goal toward unpredictability. So a system designed on a theoretical basis through a short term has less of a fail safe than one that evolved through millenia and civilizations and can weather the storms by encompassing itself unto the different political and other systems that attach to it over the eons. Making a natural system less perfect but more durable in a sense. That's not to say that the former (a theoretical system) can evolve to thar extend, however, that still takes a lot of time and effort. Much like Democracy for example, an ancient system that was brought up time and time a again, evolving through the eons along with the growth of legislation. Yet, still not even close to being perfect to this day, but seemingly very durable overall. Satisfying the general populous despite its shortcomings. An incredibly resilient system that highlights and builds a strong foundation on the imperfections of the human race to proper it forward despite its shortcomings.


> Instead it's the "free markets", whatever may that distinction entail, that lead to our current trading system and was just given a name that doesn't exactly represent it FYI, "capitalism" and "free markets" [ain't necessarily synonymous](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism).


Nope. Free markets were invented by Adam Smith. In his 1776 book "The wealth of Nations", he said explicitly that the amount of wealth in the world could grow if everything was developed in the cheapest place it could, then traded based of the supply and demand. Before that, Europe was Mercantilist, where nations attempted to extract as much wealth from each other (or underdeveloped nations) as possible, with no regard to efficiency. Essentially Smith changed the world from a zero-sum game to a non-zero sum game.


What most fail to understand is but one and simple thing. Because a person coined a term that doesn't mean that the term itself hadn't existed as a concept or was put into practice. Civilization goes far beyond just those few economic models. Also, don't overestimate "free markets", the term itself is something utopian in its purest form. There is heavy market manipulation since the dawn of time and will continue to be so. It's just that this is as close as he have gotten to it.


No, I promise you, it was a very solid break from what was standard at the time. Seriously, the enlightenment is pretty much my favorite time period, and I've read a lot about it. Not to mention I took a class on it in college. I am telling you, Adam Smith changed the world. The concept of trading for anything but getting the most coin was not a thing before him.


Modes of production arise historically, that is, they slowly develop out of small changes that connect and reshape themselves. This is true of fuedalism and tributary systems as well. There was no Richard Q Fuedal who invented it or whatever. Calling the current system we live in capitalism is important because we can actually demark clear changes and impacts as distinct from other modes, even if the way systems of production develop mean you can't really point to a hard beginning or anything. Also, I'd point out OP is probably off when they call 1400s as the start of capitalism. 1700s is probably more accurate.


A well off middle class sure didn’t and that’s for sure. Edit: Let’s see if a fact can get to 100 down votes


I agree with you, Capitalism spread wealth in ways never seen before by humanity, sadly as with everything though, without moderation it turns sour quickly. We are seeing this with the US middle class now, instead of wealth going to everyone there are only 2 sectors currently growing, the obsurdly rich and the obsurdly poor in foreign countries, who by selling their labor at what would be unlivable levels in the US are gaining wealth they previously had no access to. This is why we need a well regulated market, not the crony capitalism were in now.


This is actually why the working class needs to own the means of production


With proper regulation, strong labor laws/unions to protect workers I'm fine with private ownership of production. As I noted, it's true capitalism has generated more wealth than any system before, and my honest opinion is ultimate control by any institution leads to oppression (see: Bolsheviks, CCP, and the US during the gilded age) so I'm not big on Nationalizing private industry where there is competition etc. However we in the US have gone so far in the wrong direction with privatisation of services that I can see the desire to toss the gameboard, but I would prefer to not trade one broken power structure for another.


It sounds like you will love the idea of Market socialism. It's a free market like we have currently, it's just that corporations are represented by workers either indirectly by voting in board of directors, or by directly voting the actions of the company. This is libertarian socialism. Socialism itself isn't about government control, but applying the theory of controlling means of production via some way that is more public. One way could be Central planning. Another would be worker cooperatives like the example I just gave. And market socialism is like the only branch that hasn't been applied yet. Authoritarian and Communist-lead governments are common because it's much easier to prevent Capitalist countries from converting it back, so that's a big reason why Marxist-Leninism is common, which results in people mistaking socialism as government control.


As long as companies are run by third party shareholders who are only concerned with return on investments the world will continue to go to shits. Delete the shareholders and you'll fix 70% of our current issues.


Communism has only been tried in peasant societies and has been effective at turning them into powers competitive with the most advanced capitalist countries, imagine what would be capable if it was tried in countries with an already advanced means of production... The government will always be controlled by the same people that control the economy & in capitalism that will always be a wealthy elite


Much of the problem is actually thanks to the gov't controlling the ability to start business, because it won't ever matter how many rules you make to curb Amazon's profits, or give it's people more, the owner literally can't be stopped, plus a lot of the people in gov't are in his pocket. If you want to do something about those massive corporations then 1, stop using them, and 2, get rid of rules that make it harder to start new businesses


Deregulation has not been, or will ever be, the answer. Nor is the idea of voting with your wallet. These trains of thought are usually relegated to the rightist “libertarian” types, which in itself is oxymoronic. No, the only reliable check to these dominating mega corps has been government intervention. It’s high time for another round of good old fashioned trust-busting.


Government has the power to break up companies that are too big. They just don't enforce it. What do you mean "they can't be stopped". They literally can lmao


I bet this guy doesn't even own any capital or private property..


Came here to say this! Got into an augment the other day with a coworker asked if I was not a capitalist. (Shockingly) I simply asked, explain to me the capital you own? Car? The bank. House? The bank. Your education? The bank. Do you have employees or own access to natural resources? No? You’re a wage slave my man! Just like me. Your individualism holds you back not prop you up. They have convinced so many people that they ‘own’ their lives. That they are capitalist, when they clearly own no property, means of production or resources/labor.


Imagine supporting capitalism when the ideology directly harms you and makes your life worse


B-b-but communism is when no iPhone in Vuvuzela, therefore capitalism must be good.


Yes but his life wouldn't be better under socialism. Capitalism has downsides but other systems have way more.


Socialism is not when the government does stuff. It can literally just be worker cooperatives like in market socialism.


What? Richard Wolf himself said that socialism is when the government does stuff!


I know lol. But the real socialism like it was in Poland sucks.


Why Poland specifically? That’s such a bizarre state to choose.


Because i live there and i know why socialism here has been abolished by not a cia, but union workers.


Communism works in theory but in practice it's usually destroyed by a CIA-funded coup


first of all it's impossible to achieve communism.


Well if you say so, it must be true


Do you even know what communism really is? Have you ever read marx?


> Capitalism has downsides but other systems have way more. I'd say literally making the entire planet uninhabitable is a pretty big downsides


I would blame overpopulation on this.


The most populated countries aren't necessarily the ones destroying the planet.


Overpopulation is a myth


It seems you deviated from the hivemind, friend. Please refrain from having wrong opinions or you will suffer a social credit penalty, and if this behavior repeats, you will have to be temporarily rehomed to a reeducation camp. Be mindful of your opinions. /s


Sigh... if there's one thing about reddit that I can always count on, it's some iteration of this comment in the comments section. The irony.


I'll never understand what's the point of this "argument". Capitalism is more than owning capital or private property, given that there's also the fact that it is a system based on voluntary association, free trade, and economic freedom, added to the fact that anyone can own capital or private property. Many of the billionaires in the current world started their businesses in a garage. EDIT: Feel free to downvote me, but at least try to make a fucking argument instead of hivemind-downvoting anything you disagree with, ffs.


Capitalist (as in, a person) has a very specific meaning though- it’s an individual with access to Capital and the ability to invest in companies. Someone who participates in capitalism but isn’t of the investor class isn’t a Capitalist, they just live under capitalism.


No one is arguing with you because your own argument is dumb. Just wanted to clear that up.


⠀⠀⠘⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠑⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡔⠁⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠴⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠤⠄⠒⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣀⠄⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠈⠉⠉⠉⠉⠛⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⢏⣴⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣟⣾⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢢⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠀⡴⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⠟⠻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠶⢴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣁⡀⠀⠀⢰⢠⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⣴⣶⣿⡄⣿ ⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⠎⢸⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⢘⣿⣟⠛⠿⣼ ⣿⣿⠋⢀⡌⢰⣿⡿⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⢸⣿⣿⣧⢀⣼ ⣿⣿⣷⢻⠄⠘⠛⠋⠛⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣧⠈⠉⠙⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣧⠀⠈⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢃⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⡿⠀⠴⢗⣠⣤⣴⡶⠶⠖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡸⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⡀⢠⣾⣿⠏⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣧⠈⢹⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⡟⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⠃⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠉⠁⠀⢻⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠈⣿⣿⡿⠉⠛⠛⠛⠉⠉ ⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⡴⣸⣿⣇⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠄⠙⠛⠀⣀⣠⣤⣤⠄⠀


Capitalism isn’t based on economic freedom because if you have no capital, you have no freedom.


'Economic freedom' to use state-enforced property laws to exploit labour value from a captive working class. Landlord taking the lion's share of a person's wage is some primo liberty. Everytime I see someone grinding away at a bullshit job they hate for a wage that can't even handle the interest on their debt, I always wonder how spectacularly shit in the brain you'd have to be to imagine it's "voluntary". Next time you hear about a sex worker getting raped by a cop to avoid getting jailed, be sure to comment on how wonderful free trade is.


Who said I support the existence of a state? Also, labor value is subjective, unless you believe in the LTV, which means you're likely economically illiterate because the LTV tries to put an objective value on labor, while absolutely ignoring marginality. Landlords provide housing and take care of whatever issue that arises with their own property, if you give anyone a house they'll have to pay for the house's expenses, and anything extra that comes from any troubles that arise, such as a broken wall or whatever else, so there's virtually no difference. You know, people can't even pay a debt they have because in the US [they spend more in taxes than in clothing, housing and food combined](https://files.illinoispolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Tax-Freedom-Day_Graphic-3.png). Things like expensive healthcare and education exist because of regulations and lobbyism ([Source 1](https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive), [Source 2](https://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/10/20/how-the-federal-government-makes-college-more-expensive/)), which leads to debt for the common person. Also, you're pretending that in any other system people wouldn't have to do shitty jobs, and that they'd be able to do their dream job, but that's unrealistic. How is sex work being illegal free trade? I am 100% in favor of legalizing prostitution, that's a no-brainer, and how is a cop raping someone in any way justified? I am against the police, you know? I am 100% in favor of cops needing to have more accountability, and even of just privatizing the police force to stop them from being the government's armed wing for repression. Also, what's your alternative? More government? Where I live, we've got a massive government that spends a lot, likes to provide a ton of public services, and regulate the economy to "protect the consumer and the workers", and these policies have only led us to poverty and misery.


Have you even read Smith dude?




Welcome to Reddit. Don't bother arguing with these basement-dwellers. It isn't worth your time. If they don't succeed at anything, their first instinct is to blame capitalism for their own failures.


This guy 100% gets his ideas of what it means to be a man from Crowder


Who's Crowder


A very successful mug salesman.


As well as a prominent dog cum aficionado


Steven Crowder


Clam Chowder?




Dog cum refer eater?


Eater? I heard he chugs and gargles it


He’s a friend of Bencil Sharpener


The “change my mind” dingus.


Oh, no. Sam Seeder. What a fucking nightmare.


Canine ejaculate aficionado


I yearn to be this innocent.


A guy who measures self worth by the size of his gun holsters he wears constantly.






How do you know?


Pro tip - You’re not a capitalist bruh. Nobody cares what you think it is to be a man either.


He needs to show his deed to the factory if he wants to be capitalist, otherwise he’s just another peasant that has been successfully brainwashed.


100%. A laborer who calls themselves a capitalist is the equivalent of a pig calling itself a farmer. Yeah, you're involved in the system, but you aren't on the same team, and it's not going to end well for you.


*Have you seen the little piggies crawling in the dirt* *And for all the little piggies life is getting worse*


I heard that




Surely all you need is for the value of your pension fund & the equity in your house to keep growing irrespective of your contributions? Capital gains, in other words?


this dude seems like he's afraid to eat Chinese food because he thinks it'll trans his gender


Can confirm, I am Chinese and my whole family has been transed by fried rice and hokkien noodles. It’s a conspiracy!


don't even get me started on the fried wontons or Americanized Chinese food


Did you want to get started on something else or will that be all for you, sir?


Trans their gender?


You're not a man until you've pissed 4/5ths of your life away making money for other people.


How much capital do you think this guy owns?


None, but he bought and skimmed through the first two chapters of rich dad poor dad so he's basically almost functionally retired.


new hrt just dropped


no gender dysphoria and we get to end capitalism? sign me the fuck up


Be a real man! Get down on your hands and knees and lick the boots of your betters


Not sure I’d take advice from a Twitter account that has a butthole for their avatar


Real men give away their surplus value to their betters, and handle all the clerical tasks required to support their own health and retirement themselves. 💪😎👌


Yeah guys, how cucked is it to not want your labor to be exploited. How cucked is it to not let your boss milk you for all your worth and leave you with the scraps. How cucked is it to want to reap the benefits of your labor.


Communists fucked his wife, I imagine


I'm not a communist, but they were good sports about it and a good time was had by all in attendance


Everyone knows a REAL MAN eats the rich!


Man tip, nothing is manlier than a revolution against the people actively making the planet worse by exploiting you and your peers.


Yes also, how to be a ladylike woman tip : real women seize the means of production. This is a classic demonstration of the theory of 2 genders: capitalism and communism.


Was this written by Ron Swanson?


Reading this in Marcus’ voice from Borderlands makes it much funnier


You know what? That's fine. I'm not to invested in the whole 'being a man'-thing anyways.


Maybe for you thats fine. But not everyone is very keen on some douche questioning their manliness because some stupid shit


Hey man, this person has absolutely no authority over your gender identity, your manliness - and probably a very flawed view of his own. The only power he's got over you is the power you grant him.


I always thought that to be a man you must have honor and a penis.


Exploit the disadvantaged - be a man.


Ok Ron Swanson, calm down


I love it when people use their little internet meme buzzwords. It means I can immeadtely disregard anything they have to say with a glance. It's nice how they do that to save me time.


A psychologist once said that capitalism, taken to its extreme, rewards Psychopathy. Also, the spell-check here is dumber than my smart-phone's...


Yuk! I've known of a good few folks who view boys and men who are on the Left and especially the ones who are socialists, communists, or anarchists as being weak, feminine, soppy, or something otherwise unmasculine or unmanly, as some of these folks seem to believe that having principles of fairness and egalitarianism is for some odd reason coded as feminine and, therefore, unmasculine and unmanly.


Welp! Good thing I’m non-binary!


“Death is a preferable alternative to communism”


haha nice so you admit it patriarchy and capitalism go together in some other way




I mean parts of south India (Kerela) is matriarchal and low and behold its run by the opposition communist party. (This is correlation but I thought it was interesting)


Por que no los dos?


Like slavery and capitalism, but less racist and more misogynistic. telling shitty lies simply takes less time to research less time invested in a market that values views over information. Minimizing investment = maximizing outcome Whilst not neccesarily Maximizing investment = maximizing outcome Ergo Capitalism=shit.


Tbh I feel like socialism is now just something people scream for something political they don't like. It's never actually real socialism and I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would be screaming the same way if they saw how we did things today


It isn't just now, it's been like this throughout the 20th century.


Brave take for Twitter




Cue to this proud wageslave begging for money when covid gets him half a million in medical debt.


1. People have immune systems 2. People live in countries other than the USA 3. People from these countries other than the USA can also access Twitter 4. People in countries other than the USA pay for their healthcare via taxes, so they don't have to worry about it if they are sick 5. Healthcare in the USA isn't stupidly expensive due to capitalism, but *despite* it. Some things that have become cheaper over time, due to capitalism and mass production: phones, televisions, cars, computers, musical instruments, internet access, games consoles... 6. Reading can do you a world of good: https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive


Lol sure...


"Lol sure..." means "Fuck I have no counterarguments"


It means i know better than to argue with corporate simps.


No, it still means that you have no arguments. Ad hominems aren't arguments, they're fallacies, and fallacies come up when someone isn't capable of refuting someone's stance.


It's not an as hominem when i don't bother arguing a moron. It's experience.


It's "ad hominem", and once again what you just said is an ad hominem fallacy. "I don't bother arguing a moron", without even caring to mention why I am a moron, or why you wouldn't want to argue, you're just being incredibly arrogant and letting me know that you have no arguments at all, seemingly.


It's not. Because i am not avoiding retorting out of lack of argument. I'm stating that i know your type and know not to bother because your views are a delusional religion.


Ad hominem means "attacking the person", the definition of ad hominem is as follows: >This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. Feel free to tell yourself that you're not recurring to an ad hominem fallacy. Now, how are my views a "delusional religion", and yours not? Are all the ideologies you disagree with "delusional religions"? "I know your type, so I won't bother arguing" it's literally just as saying "I don't have arguments". The whole point of debating is to try and win an argument with someone you disagree with, so if you can't do this is because you simply lack the arguments. Do you only debate with people you agree with? Are you selective on whom you debate with? Because that'd mean that you just *can't* debate me, it's not that you refuse, you just don't have the arguments, you haven't even bothered to try and make one just for the sake of proving that you have arguments.


Just hold the L man


Another magat agrees with a magat. Oh no that must mean they are correct. LMAO ok, wageslave.


Please stop talking out of your ass, you’re embarrassing yourself again. Maybe you should go back to arguing with people on the office subreddit 😂


Lol sure


Another sick retort. Well done.


I don't know what that means, mate.


He's saying that you should accept that you lost the argument.


I would if i had. Your delusions don't dictate reality, simp.


Simp? Simp of what? Anti-statism and economic freedom? I guess you mean "corporate simp". Well, two things: corporations (in the US, at least) have so much power thanks to lobbying, and associating with the government, this is cronyism and goes against the capitalist principle of a free, competitive market, and therefore this should be stopped because it prevents smaller businesses from competing, and creates unfair, state-sanctioned monopolies. And I'd much rather simp for a corporation than for the government. You see, corporations don't force you to pay for things, you're free not to buy anything from them, while on the other hand, the government is forcing you to pay taxes under the threat of violence. Corporations are motivated by profit, which means they'll try to maximize quality and minimize costs, because in an actual free market, they would lose their consumers to the competition. Then there's also the fact that the government is inherently inefficient and a threat to an individual's freedom. Anyway, take the L.


"Corporate simps" Nice. How'd you get that information about me? If you weren't simping for corporations, you wouldn't be on reddit. You wouldn't have a smartphone. But you do. And you will inevitably attempt to justify this, or pretend to have the high ground, scoff, and avoid the argument altogether.


Tito was one of the manliest men to ever exist what is this mf on about


I may not be a communist (I’m a small business capitalist who believes in a capitalism based mixed economy that values social mobility) but I will agree with this comment.


Capitalism is when the cow has a penis.


Nothing more pathetic than caring for your fellow man s/


God damnit I need to call my girlfriend, I might be pregnant.


Why do these poor people think capitalism is for them? I can't wrap my head around that..


There is just so much overlap between toxic masculinity and american corporatocratic ideals it's basically a bullseye.


Don't go to the hospital Die Be a man


-says the guy who works for capitalists.


You can be a capitalist (i.e. in pursuit of capital) and working for somebody else. Even the people who have loads of money work for somebody. Jeff Bezos works for everybody who uses Amazon to buy something. His customers are his employers. If he pisses all those people off, he gets "fired" (i.e. His company fails). The business owner is at the behest of his customers in much the same way as the worker is at the behest of his employer. The easiest way to understand this is to boil it down to its smallest possible level. One person providing a service or product to another individual. The individual who pays the capital has \*employed\* the services of the other. They are the employer. It works in the same way at every level. Everybody has an employer as long as they are providing a service or product, and if they are providing a service or product in pursuit of capital, they are a capitalist (engaged in capitalism).


Having food does help development though.




Historically, yes.


Citizens of the Soviet union consumed more calories per day than citizens of the USA at the time. The CIA even admitted it


Too bad they used all those calories up working in the gulag


It wasn't your average citizen that got thrown in the gulag, it was the reactionaries who posed a threat to the workers who were.


Literally not true. 9 million starve to death every year in capitalist countries and the Soviets had a higher nutrition rate than the US.


Work OR starve is definitely better than work AND starve


I mean…. how many socialists/communists/etc have you seen that are willing to do manual labor and actually know anything about it or have even worked doing that stuff before?


Most that I know. Also you can be a socialist and sell your labour power by doing "mental" labour...


Many? Most actual communists are working class people affiliated with trade unions, not to mention that communism is currently most prevelant in the third world where these fake wimpy office jobs are scarce.


cool, what do you do


Did not know so many people liked Socialism, its almost as if they don't know it does not work and it always becomes a military state with a dictator and extreme poverty.


Maybe if foreign imperialists didn't intervene in socialist countries there wouldn't have been a justification to build up these instruments of state power.


Authoritarianism isn't a feature of left wing ideologies. It's only implemented because we live in a capitalist world so after a socialist revolution, the reactionary bourgeoisie who oppress the workers need to be suppressed in order for society to prosper. Over time, the reactionaries die down and the socialist country becomes far more free and democratic than any capitalist country that has ever existed


Capitalism is the worst economic system….except for all the others.


Except for communism and socialism.


Toxic masculinity and support for capitalism? Interesting.


A lack of empathy is nothing to be proud of.


Be a real man and support the dignity and rights of the working class


then I'm gay af where the socialist dicks @


Yes, being a man is licking the boots of billionaires and nor fighting for what's best for you




Neitzsche moment


Nietzsche wouldn't be considered a man by these folks if they knew anything about him


Ill take a big mac meal, bro.


Because men didn’t exist before Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations.


Caring about other people is gay as hell


Til conforming to economic subjugation by those who have more wealth than you is manly


all my trans friends cone quickly! you are AFAB and don't like it? Become a capitalist! You are AMAB? Socialist life is for you!


You're not a man unless you're being overcharged for basic commodities in the name of profitability.


Fucking eye roll to the max Hold strong, comrades!


Guaranteed working class. Guaranteed a fat.


A real man injures himself whilst working 2 jobs at the age of seventy, wracks up $150,000 in medical expenses, and then is left destitute because he gets fired since he can’t work anymore. Then he goes and repeats bullshit like this because he doesn’t really understand what socialism is, but he heard on Fox News that it’s what the democrats want to poison our way of life with.


hell yeah bro letting poor people starve is so manly


I mean have you SEEN communist leaders? Castro? Guevara? Lenin? Dudes are hot af.


Imagine wanting to avoid supporting your community and calling yourself a man.




Guess i am woman now




completely and utterly based


This affirms me as a trans woman, and you know damned well this person would insist trans people arent real. Lmao


When you do abstract art about nazi insignia in the hopes that nobody would notice how full of shit your words are. The irony is palpable.


That's quite a stretch. How often do you see these "hidden swastika"?


You are right, i was wrong, there is stupid fucks who can‘t differ between Schwarzer Sonne and Hakenkreuz, heck they don‘t even get the difference between Hakenkreuz and a swastika. No wonder reactionaries are on the rise around the world, people don‘t even notice them in clear sight. The content of what was written proves it to be nazi insignia, because profilepics are for identification.


Being a capitalist means being a spineless piece of shit who uses the police to bend and break honest working men with families