Create account

2030d · Marx
not like you're teaching us what Marxism is, LR.
replied 1938d
Marxism is critique of Capitalism, and it happened to be correct one.
replied 1937d
And yet it's never worked in the real world... go figure.
replied 1937d
All of you defenders of capitalism are ignorant and brainwashed idiots. You only focus and repeat propaganda which sounds good, and always ignore the true negatives of capitalism.
replied 1936d
"A wife hears on the radio that a man is driving on the wrong side of the road, & weaving so he doesn't hit any drivers, worried about her husband she calls on him on his cell. "Honey!
replied 1936d
I heard on the radio that a man is driving on the wrong side of the road & is weaving so he doesn't hit cars. Be careful!”
replied 1936d
”Oh it's not just one car! There's about a hundred passing me on the wrong side!””
replied 1937d
Not true. How about Former SFRJ-Yugoslavia? Also what you idiots never take into account is CAPITALISTS FASCISTS ALWAYS ATTACKING people in nations that want/have communism/socialism.
homopit
replied 1937d
With my experience from SFRJ days, I can say that most people do not understand communism/socialism yet. That's why my previous comment about mankind evolution isn't there yet.
replied 1936d
exactly right, they don't understand it because most of the people are highly brainwashed and they don't even know it
replied 1936d
Sounds less like “evil capitalists” destroyed Yugoslavia & more like industry there had to compete on the world market. It might just be that freer markets are more efficient…
replied 1936d
Also sounds like part of the country started using the centralized state as a bludgeon to extract & redistribute wealth from more productive parts of the domestic market…
replied 1936d
homopit
replied 1937d
Never will. Mankind has not reached that evolution level yet, and most likely never will be able to.
replied 1936d
>communists/socialists are the most evolved humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
replied 1937d
It will. Capitalism can't sustain itself, people who never have enough, no matter how extremely rich they are, because they are psychopaths and sociopaths, can't change this.
replied 1937d
They are pushing the society into chaos and endless wars & people are starting to push back. Capitalism will collapse eventually, only problem is these fucks won't go down peacefully.
replied 1937d
I wish the community could crowdfund you a proper education in economics, Ed. Your current understanding is so misled I'm surprised you found your way to BCH, an anarcho-cap system.
replied 1936d
Anarcho-Capitalist system? Sorry mate, you are the one who doesn't understand it at all. Bitcoin system is neither anarchist nor capitalist. In fact PoW system uses communist principle
replied 1936d
that is asinine... proof of work is about as pure a form of capitalism that exists
replied 1936d
Wrong.
replied 1936d
PoW is a race of efficiency; inefficient & unprofessional miners will get outcompeted out of this field & quit; this is good, money should run like a well oiled machine
replied 1936d
Nope, PoW is system that doesn't allow anyone to get rewards without having done the work themselves first. Efficiency or competition is not a rule of the system, its individual choice
replied 1935d
`..get rewards without having done the work themselves first` this seems to imply that one can get rewarded by mining the same block again or something like that, which makes no sense
replied 1935d
No, it doesn't imply that at all. I don't how you get the idea that it does imply that.
replied 1935d
i believe you will have a clearer view of PoW if you talk in terms of what is `does allow` instead of what it `doesn't allow`... there is only one winner per block
replied 1935d
quickest gets rewarded; in a repeating game like PoW, efficiency & scaling will have a correlation with reliably being the quickest - being a professional wins the race - capitalism
replied 1932d
Yes, and that is exactly why BSV is a bad idea. ABC is improving those aspect to help scaling.
replied 1932d
imo it is a mistake to work on scaling by messing with the protocol. getting creative with the implementation of mining node is the way to go; it is single-threaded right now #facepalm
replied 1932d
a competition of different creative node-scaling implementations is what is going to bring huge-block-support; stable protocol allows paralellization of these implementations
replied 1932d
if node-devs of all implementations are busy aligning their impl with the latest protocol-changes, they aren't spending time on eliminating processing bottle-necks in the node-software
replied 1932d
a miner can run an open-souce node impl that scales the best for his setup or invest more on a proprietary impl for additional advantage
replied 1932d
though this is only really going to become a factor when the blocks get to ridiculous sizes
replied 1933d
Blocks are rewarded proportionally to amount of hashing power within the system... this works out this way long term, not short term.
replied 1933d
Only thing miner can do "faster" is have better connectivity to receive blocks quicker to start mining new block sooner (those with worse connectivity need to wait for block longer).
replied 1932d
within this whole thing, there is also a race to the biggest block support, which unfortunately is just starting
replied 1933d
This is what CSW refers to when he says miners are incentivised to invest in network and connectivity, but this is not what defines PoW principle.
replied 1932d
if miners stop continuously investing in their hardware, it will become obsolete & they will lose profitability
replied 1933d
So I'm pretty sure I understand Bitcoin's working principles quite well.
replied 1933d
And all of this has nothing to do with Capitalism. You, same as everyone else, has this fairy tale definition of Capitalism which is not true definition of it or its principles/rules.
replied 1932d
miners get rewarded according to meritocracy, that is where capitalism comes in
replied 1932d
Capitalism is private ownership of means of production, where capitalist is the ultimate ruler & extracts profits from work of its workers. Capitalism is legal systematic exploitation.
replied 1932d
...lets say i risk my money by investing it into some business venture; should i get a share of the profit based on the amount & the risk of the investment? what do you call this?
replied 1932d
...lets say i risk my money by investing it into some business venture, should i get a share of the profit based on the risk & the investment i put in? what do you call this?
replied 1931d
Its fine to want to invest into creating a business & people that HELP you achieve this, will reward you by them working & from profits you get your initial investment back & reward.
replied 1931d
What is not fine is turning this business into perpetual machine in which you no longer keep putting work & other people doing it for you, while keep taking rewards in form of profits.
replied 1931d
That is what is fundamentally wrong and flawed. This is why some capitalists get so extremely rich & when they are also psychopaths (which many are) you end up with complete corruption
replied 1931d
you end up with these extremely rich people who didn't actually earn all those rewards from their own work, who then buy out & corrupt everything, politics, media, courts, you name it.
replied 1931d
And if you think about it, who/why anyone needs or deserves to have billions while we have people in hunger and homeless? Isn't that wealth better put into helping others? It sure is.
replied 1931d
Its this psychopathic mind that these people have, which makes them shit on humanity, fund wars and make others (politicians & MSM) to lie for them to promote war so they profit more.
replied 1931d
My whole point, and I know I am correct about this, is that rewards from your own work is well deserved, but from work of others it is not.
replied 1932d
(ignore this memo bugged out)
homopit
replied 1936d
No, it is not like that. Miners will just connect their hardware to a larger pool. Until the system ends with a single pool. Then you can have that 'well oiled machine' - Visa.
homopit
replied 1937d
Anarcho-cap system? It's a p2p digital cash payment system.
replied 1937d
Ran out of characters. It's a currency based on the philosophy of Anarcho Capitalism (no dependence on a central entity)
homopit
replied 1937d
It's a p2p payment system.
replied 1937d
So we're in agreement. Thank you. Silly me though: I just realized Ed is pro-BSV and you might be too. Carry on boys.
replied 1937d
homopit is 4D CSW shill
replied 1936d
FYI, every Capitalist business has a CENTRAL authority: THE CAPITALIST, so you have no idea what you are saying.
replied 1936d
Lol, what? Care to explain that one when/where it pertains to Bitcoin?
replied 1936d
It doesn't apply to Bitcoin system as it is not a Capitalist system.
replied 1908d
Bitcoin is incapable of being either socialist, or capitalist. It is a monetary system, not an economic system.
replied 1908d
Bitcoin politics is crypto-anarchy, the economics is anarcho-capitalism.
replied 1907d
Bitcoin system is not political system. People who are trying to change it use politics to swap public opinion to gain support so they can change the system, its what Core & ABC did.
replied 1908d
Not really. It is just that many anarchists are attracted to crypto. That doesn't mean that Bitcoin itself has some political agenda, or leanings. Some see it as communist currency.
replied 1908d
Some are idiots. In communism everyone works, everything is rationed out equally, there is no private property.
replied 1908d
Yes, but ED has this funny idea that PoW is somehow a labour based thing. It is kind of funny how he claims you dont understand PoW if you don't see it as a communist model.
replied 1907d
The Capitalist west society, did not explain what Communism really is, they labeled State control as Communism as this is what State in USSR & China declared as Communism.
replied 1907d
The west did not define capitalism. We just observed it rise and fail. Satoshi did not invent communism.
replied 1906d
Dude, Capitalism is a system designed by British and Americans but they defined it incorrectly deliberately so that it appeals to people as Free Marlets sounds good but Its PROPAGANDA.
replied 1906d
You just described the problem with communism. We can point to the good done by the free market, lives saves and poverty diminished. We can point to harm done by communism.
replied 1906d
Satoshi didn't invent Communism but he USED ITS MAIN PRINCIPLE WHEN HE WAS SOLVING THE DOUBLE SPEND PROBLEM. PoW requires active WORK to get rewards not just having stake without work.
replied 1906d
Communism has nothing to do with PoW. Capitalism rewards people for work. Communism robs people for work.
replied 1905d
Black is White, War is Peace... this is what you believe. Truth is completely the opposite.
replied 1905d
Capitalism allows you to sell your labour. Communism ties it up with group needs. How do you see Bitcoin as a system that doesn't accept private property rights?
replied 1905d
FYI, private property is man made concept which goes completely against natural state of things, only things of personal use should be considered as private property.
replied 1905d
That is false. It is a very animal nature to distinguish between mine and yours.
replied 1905d
only up to a point of need. Nature has no such thing as over consumption or money, this is what humans introduced only. Animals consume only what they need, not more, humans take more.
replied 1905d
If anything humans are the only animal that manages its consumption so as to not over consume. The is what supply and demand regulate. Animals let starvation regulate it.
replied 1905d
Again this is wrong. Overconsumption is very natural, from the cellular level up to the animal level. You going to say Australia never saw an animal over consume?
replied 1905d
What fucking animal over consumes? Give me one fucking example? What does animal consume? Food & water? Can it eat & drink more then it needs? No. How about land? Also no.
replied 1905d
I cant think of an animal that wouldn't over consume. Animals can eat until the food has run out, then they starve and die. Cats do it a lot. Cats put a lot of animals into extinction.
replied 1905d
That is not over consumption by an animal, there is a natural balance in nature which is what humans have disturbed. No individual animal over consumers... some people do. You get it?
replied 1905d
I get that you have no idea what you are talking about. Animals over consume all the time. Individual animals, and species. Animals can destroy an ecosystem. Look to Australia.
replied 1905d
Let me repeat, ONE ANIMAL DOES NOT OVER CONSUME, species as a whole can, but there is NATURAL BALANCE which makes those animals that eat too much, they die out and balance restores.
replied 1905d
In nature you have no private property, you have no inheritance, you have no money... you are just too stupid I guess, to understand this.
replied 1905d
GPS tracking of wolves in six different packs around Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota, which shows how much the wolf packs avoid each other's range
replied 1905d
An animals territory is its private property.
replied 1904d
You and every moron that liked this post, are just too stupid.
replied 1905d
Do you even have a reason to believe that is not the case? You just demand people now to your word? You could try backing up your aim instead of demanding people accept your word.
replied 1905d
You have said plenty of really stupid things, therefore you are stupid. And if some person likes such stupid comments, it means they are stupid also. This is basic logic which you lack
replied 1904d
I've taken basic logic courses. Have you? Do you really think you have used any logic to come to your conclusions?
replied 1905d
I guess it is because I listen to the experts who study animals instead of making bold assumptions as you do.
replied 1905d
Animal can fight & need to protect territory (if territorial animal) but it doesn't own it, when it dies that land is used by other animals.
replied 1905d
Animal also needs to defend its territory and it can only do so up to a limit, if territory gets too large, it can't be defended by the animal so easy, so there is natural limit there
replied 1905d
The limit is irrelevant. It is still the animals territory, and the animal will kill to defend it. So there you go. Natural property.
replied 1905d
Limit is very relevant, because its NATURAL LIMIT which again, human's don't "obey" one person having a whole continent is not fucking normal... do you get it yet?
replied 1905d
No one person has a continent. Also, who are you to decide it isn't natural?
replied 1905d
SILENTSAM.... YOU ARE DUMB AS A FUCK... PLEASE.... STOP REPLYING TO ME AND JUST GO FUCK YOURSELF
Fnuller15
replied 1905d
If you want an echo-chamber, then Memo is not the right place for you
replied 1904d
Triggered!
replied 1904d
you can go fuck yourself also
replied 1904d
😂
Calm down bro. Even if you manage to convince one or two people on here that communism is awesome. No-one will change the world. Just debate people and agree to disagree if needed
replied 1905d
Quit saying so many incorrect things then. Especially since obvious mistakes.
replied 1905d
The British Monarchy colonized Australian continent you stupid fuck... and more than that... is that good enough proof that you are so fucking stupid? Who am I to decide? Who are you?
replied 1905d
The British empire was not a single person. Is your mistake obvious yet?
replied 1905d
Also, once again, when that animal dies, territory is not inherited or still owned by it. Do you get it yet?
replied 1905d
Nothing wrong with inheritance at all. It is actually a good thing.
replied 1905d
Again wrong. This is the very thing that allows people who are born into rich families who got rich from exploitation to not having to work at all and continue to exploit others.
replied 1905d
Inheritance is earned and deserved. A right worth killing over.
replied 1905d
Humans are only species where some human can own whole continent (like the fucking British Monarchy for example), because they exploited & killed other people & stole territories.
replied 1905d
No one created any part of this planet or anything within it, which means no one should own any part of the planet, you should own only what you create yourself.
replied 1905d
Agreed. and especially governments should not own anything.
replied 1906d
Well, as government is not private entity but democratically elected leadership (which is means to lead by the will of the people) government property is in effect collective property.
replied 1902d
That could work so long as govt is not allowed to sell said property at steep discount to its cronies.
replied 1905d
And that is exactly what is wrong with it because you are selling your effort/work/labor/energy for LESS then what you deserve, because the capitalist who did no work wants to exploit.
replied 1905d
The capitalist either did work,or did invest, and that investment is just as important as the labour, and sometimes more important.
replied 1905d
You are truly very ignorant. Investment is NOT WORK, get that into your thick head and money alone produces NOTHING and WORK ONLY PRODUCES EVERYTHING.
replied 1905d
Investment > work. Labour without the right tools doesnt accomplish much. Investment brings the right tools. Work alone accomplishes very little.
replied 1905d
No it is not you stupid moron, you are really talking out of your ass, what did people do when there was no money? Can you build a house if you had no money? Of course you can.
replied 1905d
You can build a house without money, but you can build a house a lot faster and easier by buying better equipment. A back hoe can dig more than guys with shovels.
replied 1905d
So you admit that you are wrong? Money doesn't create anything, money is mad mane concept, it is just UNIT of exchange, measurement of value just how SI units are measures of something
replied 1905d
I admit I showed you were wrong. Investment gets a lot more done than work alone, and I explained that. Investment decreases the amount of work required. Therefore investment > work.
replied 1905d
Sorry... you are stupid as fuck. I think your IQ is less then 80. You can't even understand basic concepts... you are THAT STUPID.
replied 1905d
Funny how when I prove you wrong you just flip your kid. Seems you inwardly admit you were wrong since you are incapable of defending your position.
replied 1905d
WORK is what creates and builds... not money. If you still don't get it and you still think money is what does the work, you are just too stupid so please stop replying to me.
replied 1905d
I guess I just understand construction far better than you. It is pretty obvious you have no experience with these things.
replied 1905d
You stupid moron.... only think you understand is how to write shit.
replied 1905d
I actually have experience in these issues. That is why, unlike you, I know what I am talking about.
replied 1905d
You are by far the most ignorant and quite frankly, highly uneducated person I have talked to, you are completely talking out of your ass & I am tired of trying to make sense into you.
replied 1905d
I actually am educated. I majored in physics and minored in philosophy and political science. Maybe you should spend more time thinking than assuming you are correct.
replied 1905d
That is where you are wrong. The value of your labour is not determined by the price of the product sold.
replied 1905d
The value of labor is in energy needed to produce something. If some worker used all of his energy to produce something, he should get all the rewards.
replied 1905d
Anyone can work hard. Not everyone can work smart. If you are dumb and work hard it doesnt make your labour more valuable. If no one demands your labour it isn't valuable.
replied 1905d
This is about as wrong as it could be. The value of labour is set by supply and demand. If it can be done by anyone then its value is low. If only a few can do it the value is high.
replied 1907d
That's a good point.
replied 1907d
Bitcoin is a system based off of Proof of Work... its right in there... term WORK. No work - no rewards. That is type of system that Bitcoin is which is exactly what Communism is about
replied 1907d
Actually that seems to explain capitalism better. Especially since that work is proportional to the investment one makes before hand.
replied 1906d
No it doesn't! Owners of bigger capitalist businesses DO NOT EVEN WORK! They just OWN the property of production which is what PoS principle is about. You are simply brainwashed.
replied 1906d
You assume they dont even work. Most actually do, and those who only invest are good for doing so as investment is sometimes more important than work. I see you dont understand POS.
replied 1906d
I said WORK and you said INVESTORMENT. They are two very DIFFERENT THINGS and you can't even see such simple thing because you are brainwashed by capitalist propaganda.
replied 1906d
Investors are very important. Without them work is a lot harder, if there is even work at all. You over value work, and under value investment. Communists dont understand value itself.
replied 1907d
Yes, in Communism everyone that can, should work and contribute to society which benefits everyone. Some can have more if they are more capable so its not like 100% everyone has same.
replied 1907d
Bitcoin is not Socialist or Capitalist indeed but creation of bitcoins & producing blocks is a form of production which uses some type of economic system. PoW is Communist type system.
replied 1907d
That is quite the stretch. If it was called Proof of Comoutation would you still call it a communist system? I think you are looking at the word work wrong.
replied 1936d
I agree that Bitcoin shares many ideas and theories that communism does about the distribution of ownership / labor. However, I think it still shares much more with capitalism.
replied 1935d
As I understand it, yugoslavia (that ED likes as a model of socialism) was heavily in favor of decentralization (similar to ancap & bitcoin).
replied 1935d
Yes, very much like that, it was nation run by and for working class people. Everyone had free education and health cover, defensive armed forces only, for freedom and social equality
replied 1930d
would be a more productive discussion if we could start from where we agree then branch out from there. I like decentralization & think it has good results, want as much as possible.
replied 1935d
for some reason both ED and LR refuse to look for or acknowledge common ground between the systems. its like socialism (defined however) = good & capitalism (defined however) = bad.
replied 1935d
Capitalism is bad system because it has no built in rules to prevent exploitation which leads to massive wealth inequality which leads to corruption of society.
replied 1909d
Tainter's law: diminishing return on invenstment in additional complexity. Any organization (eg companies) can only grow so large before collapsing.
replied 1909d
Glossing over the fact that neither of you have provided a definition of exploitation or a way to measure it, true, there are no 'hard coded' rules to prevent ‘exploitation’
replied 1909d
It isn't the economic model that makes the rules. It is up to the government to make rules against exploitation. The same goes for socialism and communism.
replied 1909d
but competition & reputation limits immoral behavior. & tainter’s law limits company size.
replied 1908d
and...
TAINTER’S LAW LIMITS Government SIZE.
replied 1907d
& their collapse is more graceful (retail layoffs. Other end would be investment banks in 2008) & if one co. fails alternatives are there to immediately step in (retail vs amazon).
replied 1907d
In contrast companies, regulate their own size in response to market conditions and their own efficiency as a business.
replied 1907d
True, but unfortunately, it seems the only way to reduce gov size it to wait for it to collapse, dragging everyone down with it for a time.
replied 1935d
Bitcoin system for example has built in limits to prevent such things. Socialism & worker owned means of production has it also. While some corruption can happen its limited in scale.
replied 1908d
How does Bitcoin prevent exploitation? I cant wait to see how you fall on your face explaining that.
replied 1936d
Obviously Bitcoin isn't capitalist, communist, socialist, etc. However, the game theory that supposedly ensures its security relies on a series of assumptions about capitalist trade.
replied 1938d
and yet it is so vague