"Even if a coin has no real world use it can still have value stemming from the fact that each additional currency provides more opportunity for traders to earn"
complete waste of human resources
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
"Even if a coin has no real world use it can still have value stemming from the fact that each additional currency provides more opportunity for traders to earn"
complete waste of human resources
Why would anyone want to be a resource? Resources are there to be used and consumed, doesn't sound very appealing to me..
that's what wage labor is. Under capitalism you must become one or starve.
This book explains it well.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
Wages are an exchange of value. In fact, wages and debt must be paid BEFORE there can be any retained earnings. This is why being an entrepreneur is burdened with high risks.
ah yes that's why statistically they always win, like a casino.
"Wages are an exchange of value" The upkeep cost of the worker is that exact value. Feeding a slave is an exchange of value, paying your wage laborer just enough to survive is the exact thing.
lololol dude you missed the part that was important... The zap wallet is desinged for merchants and will feature BTC and LTC.
"Litecoin is also about three times faster to process transactions than BitCoin, which should make it appealing to merchants."
"to merchants"
you mean the capitalist class. Disgusting
You might be disgusted by the capitalist, but they have and will always exist. The problem is absolute power. When the capitalist or any other have absolute power that's when the unfairness prevails. It is possible to set limits to the capitalists, checks and balances that protects all members of society, while offering opportunities.
Currently the anti-capitalist approach only seeks elimination of the capitalists, together with the advantages they bring to society (they exist even if you don't like them or don't agree with them). Anti-capitalism is now a destructive force that don't consider any alternatives but destruction, and that's the reason why it is not viable. It seeks revenge and punishment instead of creating a better society.
Would we have more research and development with anti-capitalists in power? would we have better education and healthcare?
There are examples of very good experiences with assembly societies, but not a single one of a successful anti-capitalist society .
"The problem is absolute power. When the capitalist or any other have absolute power that's when the unfairness prevails. It is possible to set limits to the capitalists, checks and balances that protects all members of society, while offering opportunities."
impossible under capitalism, the checks and balances must be in the favour of the capitalist. Otherwise the capitalist class literally couldn't exist. This leads to a complete capitalist control of any government.
Look at chile when they elected a socialist. The capitalists simply paid the truckers to stop moving food and other essential items. The entire country ground to a halt and the people started starving until the government did what the capitalists wanted, taking out the (democratically) socialist leader.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
this book talks about how imperialism is literally the only outcome other than collapse for a capitalist society.
It also doubles as a book explaining how "free-market" capitalism will lead to monopolies no matter what.
"Would we have more research and development with anti-capitalists in power? would we have better education and healthcare?"
you see that major collapse in lifespan that takes 10+ years to fix? That's russia turning capitalist
That's caused by the collapse of the USSR, which was not capitalist. And you can see how the descent starts before the collapse.
the decent is caused by capitalist reforms. Also the entire goverment collapsed before it turned communist, and the lifespan shot up.
Oh yeah, the government didn't collapse lmao
Lifespan increased during communism, as it replaced a monarchy that basically did not give a shit about their people. You need to compare it to other countries in the same time:
White male in USA had life expectancy of 56 years if born in 1919 and 67 years if born in 1959. I'll make it easier for you to grasp:
Imperial Russia - 32 years
USA in 1920 - 56 years
Soviet Russia in 1956 - 68 years
USA in 1959 - 67 years
You see? Life expectancy increased thanks to replacing the previous system. Had it been communism or capitalism, probably both would have similar effects. Communism failed because it was not sustainable, there were no incentives, no motivation, no other way of ruling but by fear. Capitalism is a sick system, but communism has also its sickness. Anarchy could work? As far as I know has never been tried at large scale and the small scale experiences ended fast (most cases boycoted by external elements).
So far what seems to work better is a Capitalist system with strict limitations and focus on social development. It worked well in Nordic countries, and now it is being savaged by Neo-liberalism and soulless capitalism. The answer is more about going back to a vision of social development and public services with quality and excellence assurance, more than communism. But that of course is just my opinion.
"You might be disgusted by the capitalist, but they have and will always exist"
wrong
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
in fact they didn't exist for the vast majority of human history.
"Anti-capitalism is now a destructive force that don't consider any alternatives but destruction, and that's the reason why it is not viable. It seeks revenge and punishment instead of creating a better society."
actually if you look at russia for examples, they industrialised faster than any capitalist country in history, doubled lifespan, and printed 3/5ths of the worlds books.
All china did was raise the entire country out of poverty and triple lifespan.
India killed 3 million communists and stayed at the bottom.
you're not just wrong, you're stupid.
this might actually explain to you what you are trying to debate.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
now fuck off
Thanks for the insulting. That really convinces anyone that your arguments are based on facts and not just passionate feelings (/sarcasm).
China's cultural revolution from Mao Zedong caused the death of millions of people. Search for the Great Chinese Famine if you want to learn more.
Stalin industrialized Russia at expense of desincentivizing modernization, taking any dissidence down and killing thousands of comrades just because of their ideas.
If you were a true anarchist, someone that respects individuals and ideas and debate, you wouldn't be insulting and fucking off around as you are.
You come across just as a groupie bashing anyone that does not buy or share your ideas. You don't want progress, you want to impose your ideas to others. And that's not good, it is very capitalistic.
"If you were a true anarchist, someone that respects individuals and ideas and debate"
I am an egoist, the truest kind of anarchist. Respect doesn't exist, its a ghost of the mind. A spook.
here is an entire post explaining why that comment is stupid on every possible level.
https://steemit.com/economics/@anarchyhasnogods/the-basics-of-anti-capitalism-exploitation-and-imperialism-part-one