Libertarian vs Socialism

[Buorhann]

 

The comic of yours suggests everyone is stupid but if everyone is stupid then even national leaders are stupid and thus unable to lead and your capitalist fat cat is too stupid to trick his employes to work for nothing, careful lest you be called out as a bigot for suggesting the poor are dumb.

 

The comic also conveniently leaves out the organizational jobs the "supervisor" there has to go through.

 

>capitalism is unsustainable

>capitalism lasted several decades 

 

Big Brother, you amuse me.

[Bored now Leafing]

Lemme guess, you're a gold standard proponent.

 

Because economic disruptions NEVER HAPPENED before "fiat money."  

 

 

If i had to be nailed down to one position i would favor allowing the market aka the people who buy sell and trade aka everyone who uses any form of currency or barter to pick the best while not allowing a monopoly of one type or another to dominate, so you would have gold yes but also fiat and bitcoin and, and, and, because they all have there uses in different situations, going with one type of money would be like going on a long journey without packing both gear for both warm and cold climates.

These days the disruptions are a bit more then disruptions and they are getting bigger and more frequent the more the central banking institution tries to prop up the big players that should have been allowed to fail.

[WISD0MTREE]

Because all socialist societies have long hospital waits? Laughable statement. C'mon, don't be a facile stereotype, you can do better.

 

It's truly remarkable, astonishing, almost entertaining how utterly fooled and duped some of you have been into believing that Capitalism is a sustainable system that's good for everyone. It's perhaps one of the Capitalists' strongest means, the ability to trick people into fighting their cause for them, and making you believe that it's for your own good.

 

It's not you, the workers that benefit from Capitalism. Compared to the capital owners, you get mere scraps, while they get unproportional amounts of wealth, influence, and resources. You would consider a system that allows the rich to become richer and richer and richer, while every 6 seconds a child dies from starvation, to be a fair system. What a joke! A complete, puerile absurdity!

 

This is Capitalism in a nutshell:

-snip-

Makes so much sense, right?

 

Throughout the entire course of history, rulers have thought of their own social system as the one we will all be a part of, forever. They have always been wrong.

 

Capitalism was a magnificent force when it got rid off feudalism, it was a wonderfully progressive force that brought society many many years forward. It led to a massive increase in, and development of mankind's productive capabilities, and in many parts of the world it has led to great material and social progress.

 

But anyone with a clear mind can now see that it has outlived its usefulness. It's not only a threat to human beings, but to the nature of our entire planet.

 

It is not in any way rational or beneficial for a small majority to own the means of production, exploiting those who actually do work and create value, and destroying the planet's resources, thus robbing future generations of their livelihood, only to increase their own wealth. It is morally abhorrent, and utterly disgusting.

 

Capitalism is unsustainable, and through history it has gone from crisis to crisis. Since the Long Depression in 1873, all the way up to the financial crisis in 2008, and they will only keep happening until enough people have become fed up with it, and then that will be the end of it.

 

You don't have to believe me,

and I don't really have to convince you.

It's only a matter of time. If you want to keep fooling yourself and genuinely believing in your misconceptions about Socialism, go right ahead buddy.

Show me one that doesn't.

 

So the system that has thrived for centuries is the unsustainable system?

 

So people don't move up or down between income brackets? According to this, only 5% of the people who started at the bottom 20% in 1975 were still in that category in 1991. Plus, six times as many were in the top 20% in 1991.

http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/llcs2012.pdf

 

The supervisor also has responsibilities.

 

Cool story.

 

That is actually a little poetic.

 

I'm looking for points to argue, but you are very vague.

 

...

 

Depressions and recessions have some good after they passed. Technology advances quickly after them. For example, after the Great Depression, electrification became common.

 

Good. I don't.

Good. You don't.

Cool.

[PigInZen]

You do realize that electrification after the Great Depression was driven by government regulations and the TVA, right?

[Chickensguys]

Socialist are scum, worthless maggots that feed on greatness. 

 

Libertarians are amazing people that understand the importance of Freedom. 

[Chickensguys]

You do realize that electrification after the Great Depression was driven by government regulations and the TVA, right?

 

The free market would have done it more effectively by managing resources in the best way possible. 

[Rozalia]

The free market would have done it more effectively by managing resources in the best way possible. 

 

Of course we can't doubt the great Sky Wizard known as Free Market. Forget what actually works/has worked, it'd have been better if we believed in the holy ghost of the free market. 

[PigInZen]

I'm not going to be trolled.  Thanks for destroying what might have been a legit discussion, CG.

[WISD0MTREE]

Of course we can't doubt the great Sky Wizard known as Free Market. Forget what actually works/has worked, it'd have been better if we believed in the holy ghost of the free market. 

Better than government. 

 

Once upon a time there was a state called South Carolina. Motorcycle permits were easier to get than licenses. People just got permits and never got their license because they were pretty much the same thing. (The permits didn't let you ride at night.) One day, the government decided that the people had to try to get their license every year. This led to a 16 year old getting his motorcycle license, despite being too young. (You had to be 18 to get the license and 16 for a permit.) 

 

You see, government is so efficient. 

[Chickensguys]

I'm not going to be trolled.  Thanks for destroying what might have been a legit discussion, CG.

 

[Garrett Tipton]

I'll throw my two cents in. Both capitalism and socialism have their place in society. Look at the nordic countries. They have a very nice balance of socialism (their particular flavor) and capitalism. Regulated capitalism has its place in the market place. Socialism is necessary to catch those who simply CAN'T get their head above water. The free market isn't some magical place that allows everybody to be employed and rise to the top. An unfortunate side effect of capitalism is that somebody (most people) MUST be at the bottom, and sometimes the bottom can be an ugly place.

 

Let's not forget that the middle class is not a natural effect of capitalism. At least in the U.S., it has been engineered time and again by the government. Without redistribution of wealth and the minimum wage, most Americans would be living at or below the poverty line.

 

In the end we must ask ourselves which is more important: Freedom of choice, or taking care of other humans, ensuring that nobody is forced to suffer beyond what is reasonable.

[Rozalia]

Better than government. 

 

Once upon a time there was a state called South Carolina. Motorcycle permits were easier to get than licenses. People just got permits and never got their license because they were pretty much the same thing. (The permits didn't let you ride at night.) One day, the government decided that the people had to try to get their license every year. This led to a 16 year old getting his motorcycle license, despite being too young. (You had to be 18 to get the license and 16 for a permit.) 

 

You see, government is so efficient. 

 

No the philosophy is flawed because it assumes that blind faith in the free market equals success when there are plenty of examples showing that to not be the case. Failures of course are blamed on the market not being "free enough" naturally though thankfully there are times even those people aren't so shameless (like when the banking kerfuffle happened people started talking about how there wasn't enough regulation, not that there was too much even though many of those same people had been pushing for less regulation previously). 

 

To give an example. Here in Britain the railways are privatized though they still ran a part of it for 5 years not that long ago because shocker, the private companies messed up (twice). That was the most efficient part of the railways... the answer to that from the government? Get it privatized even though it's clear it will lead to it being less efficient and the government will have to increase the subsidy it will require meaning they will actually waste money privatizing instead of saving it (the profits it was making will now be swallowed up obviously)

Why would they oppose something that works to push proven failures? To worship at the alter of their philosophy or religion if you will obviously and though it took some time... they got it back in private hands and we'll see just how that works out. 

 

To sum it up. You are correct in some cases, but to speak as if it is factually the case across everything is nonsense. If you were presented with something that failed constantly in private hands and than was a success in public ones and still want it privatized even though it goes completely against common sense and logic... than this is not a discussion as clearly reality or success does not matter, only ideology.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Capitalism on a level playing field is nice. I mean level playing field as in: no Government favors, funding, bailouts, kickbacks, lobbying for favors, etc.
 

Socialism on the other hand has only one problem in my eyes: Collectivism. Collectivism sucks. Oh, and I like property. I ike to do things on my own property and not have any interference from any Government on my own property.

 

For those of you who live in the US, realize, we are pretty much Socialists now regrdless of the lie we try to live in. We redistribute, we now have Social Healthcare even if you pay for it on your own, we have the government taking care of most of our choices for us even if we do not want the Government to do so, so yeah, weare Socialists who live with the illusion of Capitalism and freedom. We live in an illusion- A big, fat Corporate/Social Welfare State is the reality.

[Big Brother]

Socialism on the other hand has only one problem in my eyes: Collectivism. Collectivism sucks. Oh, and I like property. I ike to do things on my own property and not have any interference from any Government on my own property.

 

Socialism doesn't abolish private property. You can still own stuff and have personal possessions. The important part for socialists is that the means of production are under collective control. No one would suggest that you can't own your own house or property, or that you shouldn't have the freedom to "do things" on your own property. That would be absurd.

 

What you've described above is more akin to totalitarianism, not socialism, although the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

Collectivism is perfectly reasonable and desireable, because it provides literally everyone with literally everything they need. The benefits should be obvious.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Big Brother

[Thalmor]

You can rant and rave all you want about capitalism, but In every application of communism that has occurred throughout the 20th century you see the same thing - which is to say, massive loss of civil rights and massive rates of death; caused by political purges or dramatic economic hardship. Simply looking at it per capita, capitalist nations enjoy higher qualities of life.

 

Look at this these well-fed, wealthy, free Soviets!

[Big Brother]

First of all, we were discussing socialism, which is not the same as communism. A lot of people can't seem to get that through their head.

 

Secondly, communism has never ever been applied anywhere, because a communist society can't exist in a world with governments and many, separate nation states. Communist societies have no government, no state, no borders. It strives to abolish the rule of any one class over another.

 

Countries like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were/are ruled by communist parties, because once upon a time their end goal was to achieve a communist society. This does not mean that what they actually practiced/practice, was/is a communist society.

 

The idea that dictatorship is something that should come along with socialism or communism, is an idea that first came along with Marxism-Leninism, which basically means it was Lenin's idea. Karl Marx himself, the founder of communism, never made "the dictatorship of the proletariat" a part of his ideology.

 

If you can look past your preconceived notions, this should be pretty informative:

 

No, there are no communist countries, because a truly communist society would be stateless, there would be no government at all, and thus no nations. This is why the communists consider a world revolution to be necessary before the kind of utopian communism that is sought can be fully accomplished, because it would be impossible for one nation to embrace statelessness when there are so many other nations that don't. A "fully communist country" is a contradictory statement, because there can be by definition no countries under communism.

 

I think you're over-simplifying an ideology that includes an incredible amount of ideas, concepts and sub-ideologies. There are so many types of communists, and they often do not agree with each other.

 

True communism is by nature democratic, more democratic than the democracies we cling to so dearly today. However, a lot of communists believe that in order to "safeguard the revolution", one has to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, or worker's dictatorship, not only to strengthen and further pursue the revolution, but also to facilitate the massive changes that must take place, to educate the proletariat, and to prepare the people for the changes to come. It's in the dictatorship of the proletariat that the risk of corrupting factors occur, because power has a tendency to corrupt. To communists, authoritarianism is simply a means to achieve the end goal of communism, it has no more value to them than a hammer does to a carpenter. It's not the tool in itself that is the goal, it's the house it builds.

 

I'm not a communist myself, but I think you're wrong, and even slanderous to go around stating truths about an ideology when your actual knowledge and understanding of it is rather limited. If anything, it speaks more about the nature of your own character, than of the things you are attempting to state anything about.

 

 

And actually, the countries with the highest standard of living in the world are usually Scandinavian social democratic welfare states that regularly practice some pretty left-wing policies, like extensive government control over certain vital parts of the economy. Capitalism did great things for standards of living throughout the time of its development, but it really has outlived its usefulness.

[Thalmor]

Secondly, communism has never ever been applied anywhere, because a communist society can't exist in a world with governments and many, separate nation states. Communist societies have no government, no state, no borders. It strives to abolish the rule of any one class over another.

 

Countries like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were/are ruled by communist parties, because once upon a time their end goal was to achieve a communist society. This does not mean that what they actually practiced/practice, was/is a communist society.

 

The idea that dictatorship is something that should come along with socialism or communism, is an idea that first came along with Marxism-Leninism, which basically means it was Lenin's idea. Karl Marx himself, the founder of communism, never made "the dictatorship of the proletariat" a part of his ideology.

 

A society without a government just isn't possible. It's natural for people to form social spheres and to attempt to control other people. Trying to form what is, by the way you're putting in, an anarchist society, is difficult because how will you stop the thieves without a police force? How will you prosecute and go after crime? How will said society make sure everyone does the work necessary to preserve modern society as we know it? How will science progress? I mean, will scientists do their work diligently and for the greater good of mankind out of their own kindness?

 

If you can achieve what you describe and at the same time keep the peace, then good for you. However, it just doesn't seem possible because of all the variables.

 

 

And actually, the countries with the highest standard of living in the world are usually Scandinavian social democratic welfare states that regularly practice some pretty left-wing policies, like extensive government control over certain vital parts of the economy.

 

I was defending capitalism, not Laissez-faire. I can understand some regulation in the market and some forms of welfare. Heck, I generally view myself as leaning conservative and I can get behind a single-payer healthcare system; assuming it's done right and carefully.

 

 

Capitalism did great things for standards of living throughout the time of its development, but it really has outlived its usefulness.

 

So how are you going to change it, then? For the reasons I pointed out above, it just seems like it would be easier to accept the current system and to make the best out of it yourself than to commit to the promotion of an ideology that has had it's name smeared in more blood than a feminine hygiene product has.

[Big Brother]

Capitalism doesn't need to be changed, it needs to be crushed. And you're right, it would be easier. But a pretty famous fellow once said:

 

"We choose to go to the Moon! ...We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win ..."

 

Like I mentioned in that quote in my last post, I am not a communist. I am an anti-capitalist, if anything. I don't believe in a stateless society any more than you do, and I doubt that communist ideas are still applicable to the world as it is today. I will however, try to explain the viewpoint of the people who do.

 

Technically, we have enough productive forces on this planet to provide everyone with everything they need. In a stateless society, where the means of production are under collective control, there wouldn't be any need to resort to crime because no one would lack anything. There'd simply not be any reason for anyone to commit crimes. And even if they did, regular people are perfectly capable of containing, incarcerating and punishing individuals who commit crimes, without the existence of any hierarchal structures. We aren't mindless animals, after all.

 

Communists have no interest in preserving modern society as we know it, they actively seek to alter it.

 

As for science, it would progress based on need. If people in a communist society need more advanced say... agricultural practices, there's nothing stopping them from putting their heads together figuring it out for themselves, for their own benefit, and for the benefit of others. You wouldn't have to pay anyone, because they would already have everything they need, like I mentioned above.

 

When it comes to people's motivations to work, you have stuff like peer pressure, societal expectations and communal responsibilities. You would still have to do work to provide for you and yours, the difference is that there's no one to exploit your labor for themselves.

 

Straight from The Communist Manifesto:

 

"It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: There can no longer be any wage labour when there is no longer any capital."

 

And from Wikipedia:

 

"Marx delineated the specific conditions under which such a creed would be applicable—a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things, where "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want".^[12] Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents."^[13][14]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability%2C_to_each_according_to_his_need

 

Some communists advocate a kind of system where if you're able to work, and you choose not to, you will not be allowed to reap the benefits of that kind of communist society, because you don't contribute to it.

 

Oh and, in theory anarchist societies are similar to communist societies, but they are not quite the same.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Big Brother

[Thalmor]

 

Technically, we have enough productive forces on this planet to provide everyone with everything they need. In a stateless society, where the means of production are under collective control, there wouldn't be any need to resort to crime because no one would lack anything. There'd simply not be any reason for anyone to commit crimes. And even if they did, regular people are perfectly capable of containing, incarcerating and punishing individuals who commit crimes, without the existence of any hierarchal structures. We aren't mindless animals, after all.

 

When it comes to people's motivations to work, you have stuff like peer pressure, societal expectations and communal responsibilities.

 

The biggest issue I see with this, though, is how will you convince seven billion people - particularly in Europe and North America - to adopt a system that would dramatically change society and their daily lives? Change is scary to people, especially in regards to how they, well, live their daily life; their routine if you will. How will you convince all the governments of the world to dissolve?

 

Although, I will be honest here. My opposition to what you're saying comes less from ideology and more from pragmatist. I suppose I can see this happening once technology gets to the point where physical labor on behalf of humans is no longer necessary. However, until then, I'm very skeptical.

 

You would still have to do work to provide for you and yours, the difference is that there's no one to exploit your labor for themselves.

 

The employees of the world are not exploited, though. Employment is a voluntary agreement between two people: the employee and the employer. The employee gives his labor, and in exchange, receives a wage. I know this firsthand because my mother owns a clinic and for the half-decade she's been open she's had dozens of employees. All of them were paid above minimum wage and were treated nicely, they weren't taken advantage of, and they chose to be there.

 

 

"It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: There can no longer be any wage labour when there is no longer any capital."

 

The claim that the rich individuals of the world don't do any work is absurd. The kings of history had the duty of running the state, and the C.E.O.'s of the world have the responsibility to make sure their company runs smoothly. My mother, for instance, has to make sure the bills are paid and that the employees don't act up. Don't they all work with their hands? No, but that doesn't meant they don't work.

 

 

"Marx delineated the specific conditions under which such a creed would be applicable—a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things, where "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want". Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents."

 

See, here's the issue, though: To Karl Marx himself, his proposition was a theory; it's never been done before. You stated yourself that ''true'' Communism has never existed. Marx doesn't know what he says in the above quoted paragraph is true. The arguments you are providing for you ''side'' are simply that: theories. There's nothing for sure known about them.

[Karrde]

To my mind, government can choose to spend our money on vastly more important things than we choose to, so socialism is the way forward.

 

On foreign aid, there's a good scene in the West Wing that gives a statistic about the fake Americans:

 

65% think we spend too much money on foreign aid, 59% want to see it cut...

 

So 6% think they spend too much but don't want to see it cut...

 

That for me in a nutshell shows how government spend our cash more wisely than us, so tax and spend please!

[WISD0MTREE]

To my mind, government can choose to spend our money on vastly more important things than we choose to, so socialism is the way forward.

 

On foreign aid, there's a good scene in the West Wing that gives a statistic about the fake Americans:

 

65% think we spend too much money on foreign aid, 59% want to see it cut...

 

So 6% think they spend too much but don't want to see it cut...

 

That for me in a nutshell shows how government spend our cash more wisely than us, so tax and spend please!

Yep. Dancing lessons for the IRS are important. Ohh, ohh! What about parodies of TV shows? Those are way more important! 

 

Here is a list. Each link is it's own story.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/01/newly-released-irs-video-shows-employees-dancing/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/22/irs-star-trek-parody/2011915/

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/us-taxpayers-spent-1-4-billion-on-the-obamas-in-2012-british-taxpayers-only-spent-57-8-million-on-the-entire-royal-family

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/10/17/the-10-dumbest-ways-the-government-wasted-taxpayer.aspx

https://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/supercuts_707691.html?page=2

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/strapped-feds-have-money-for-gopher-tortoise-survey/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bidens-one-night-paris-hotel-tab-58500050_708799.html

[Possibly NSFW: Mods, feel free to remove this link] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/19/nih-under-fire-for-grants-toward-creation-homoerotic-website/#ixzz1sVTIKewp

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/28/guantanamo-detainees-get-new-750g-soccer-field/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/u-s-paying-for-indonesians-masters-degrees/

http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/21/the-year-in-government-waste-bridges-to

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/12/grateful-dead-tom-coburn-wasteful-spending-/1?csp=hf#.VZxsqflViko

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/government-funds-study-gay-sex-argentina-bars/

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/26-million-tax-dollars-spent-to-train-chinese-prostitutes-to-drink-responsibly-on-the-job

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-tom-coburn-criticizes-wasteful-government-programs-2010/story?id=12437190&tqkw=&tqshow=WN

http://origin.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/50-examples-of-government-waste#_edn3

 

I didn't fact check these yet. I literally broke my mouse doing this. 

Edited July 8, 2015 by WISD0MTREE

[LordRahl2]

I didn't fact check these yet. I literally broke my mouse doing this. 

 

Oh my.  Dead mice are sad.

 

Impress me.  Add all the money spent on those projects and give me the result's % as a fraction on the Federal budget.  I will even let you add the articles about British spending.

Edited July 8, 2015 by LordRahl2

[WISD0MTREE]

Impress me.  Add all the money spent on those projects and give me the result's % as a fraction on the Federal budget.  

 

This is just the beginning. I'd bet that there are a lot more stuff like this in there. Even if there isn't, it is still unacceptable. 

 

And you are the one arguing that it isn't a significant part of the budget. Why don't you do it, then? 

Edited July 8, 2015 by WISD0MTREE

[LordRahl2]

This is just the beginning. I'd bet that there are a lot more stuff like this in there. Even if there isn't, it is still unacceptable. 

 

And you are the one arguing that it isn't a significant part of the budget. Why don't you do it, then? 

 

I just made a request, I am not arguing anything.  Neither did you, you posted a list of mouse breaking links.  I am asking you to add those costs together and divide by the federal budget.  Feel free to select as many as you desire if you have the backup mice to handle it.  You also appear to have a hypothesis, specifically that those costs are not significant.  Just trying to help you.

[Big Brother]

The biggest issue I see with this, though, is how will you convince seven billion people - particularly in Europe and North America - to adopt a system that would dramatically change society and their daily lives? Change is scary to people, especially in regards to how they, well, live their daily life; their routine if you will. How will you convince all the governments of the world to dissolve?

 

Capitalism will collapse under its own weight, it's only a matter of time. Crisis after crisis will happen, as history has proven, until it can't be sustained any more. Things will only get worse, and people will simply become fed up. There wouldn't really be a need to convince anyone. Plus, it should be pretty obvious that if we can adopt a system where everyone gets everything they need, we should go for it, we'd be crazy not to.

 

The employees of the world are not exploited, though. Employment is a voluntary agreement between two people: the employee and the employer. The employee gives his labor, and in exchange, receives a wage. I know this firsthand because my mother owns a clinic and for the half-decade she's been open she's had dozens of employees. All of them were paid above minimum wage and were treated nicely, they weren't taken advantage of, and they chose to be there.

 

They are indeed exploited, because capitalism leaves everyone who's not a capital owner or investor with only one choice: to rent yourself out as a worker. It is essentially wage slavery.

 

And then the employer takes a share out of everyone's work, pretty much leeching off of them. In a communist society, there wouldn't be a need for anyone to be in the position your mother has, because the workers would be quite capable of managing themselves, without having anyone in a position above them to take a piece of their work. Choosing between working for a wage or living in poverty and starving, is not really a choice at all.

 

It's basically like this:

 

 

And you might have seen this already, but it really does illustrate it pretty well:

 

 

 

 

Let there be no doubt, it is pure exploitation of others.

 

The claim that the rich individuals of the world don't do any work is absurd. The kings of history had the duty of running the state, and the C.E.O.'s of the world have the responsibility to make sure their company runs smoothly. My mother, for instance, has to make sure the bills are paid and that the employees don't act up. Don't they all work with their hands? No, but that doesn't meant they don't work.

 

That is literally exactly the point Marx was making in that quote.

 

If the objection that in a communist society, everyone would succumb to laziness because they already have what they need is true, then the same should be true for the capitalists, who have everything they need. But it's not true, they still work. I'm in complete agreement with you on this, and so is Karl Marx.

 

See, here's the issue, though: To Karl Marx himself, his proposition was a theory; it's never been done before. You stated yourself that ''true'' Communism has never existed. Marx doesn't know what he says in the above quoted paragraph is true. The arguments you are providing for you ''side'' are simply that: theories. There's nothing for sure known about them.

 

Theory is rarely created without supporting evidence. It's not like Marx got all these ideas out of nowhere, he didn't draw his conclusions based on thin air. Capitalism most definitely started out as a theory too, along with the gravitational theory and the theory of evolution. A lot of things start out as an idea, or a hypothesis, and then they are put into practice. Just because true communism has never been put into practice before, doesn't mean it should be automatically dismissed.