Random shit from a Skinhead in OKC
splots-prlrlllssshhhh:

liberty-skin-okc:

salenin:

The shear stupidity is astounding.

Care to elaborate on why you think that?

This is not really how it works, and the phrasing for the definition for both is actually wrong.
Capitalism is defined by private ownership of pretty much anything that requires and has property rights. This includes the mediums of production, which in turn includes but are not limited to anything healthcare, food and education related. This means an individual can own by itself a whole hospital, or a school, or a farm and its distribution chains, in theory (in practice they’re owned by small groups of people in the form of corporations or similar).
Socialism is defined by common ownership of the mediums of production. Everything that produces (or ‘creates jobs’) is owned by the collective, also colloquially known as the people or everyone. Thus, anything that produces something, again including hospitals, is owned by and is property of everyone.
Property rights exist under both systems. Property can only exist when a good is scarce, this is why gold and land can be owned, while there’s no need for air ownership.
Now I’ll expand on the implications and consequences of both definitions.
The main implication of private ownership is that since valuable things are scarce and more likely to be owned by someone else, one has to trade one valuable good for another. And to have property in the first place one has to trade one’s body labor and time for something else.
This is not generosity, generosity is to give away. Capitalism is not generosity because one gives away to earn something that is considered more valuable. Now that’s what I’d call selfishness.
The main implication of common property instead of private is that there’s no need for such trade to happen, only work. By working to improve what belongs to everyone, then one naturally earns what one needs to live and be healthy, including education, food, transportation, housing and the like.
This is not selfishness, selfishness is to want to take what does not belong to one. Socialism is not selfishness because one works for the greater good. Now that’s what I’d call generosity.

I think I cleared most of this up on my stance here in the prior reblog, as well as a few other things Salenin said, if you’d like to take a look. But, before I go into this with you I want to state that I do not believe socialism is a bad thing when it is 100% voluntary. (in other words, nobody is being forced to participate in a collective or to offer ‘free’ services) Socialism, in my eyes, typically implies selfishness because it implies that one (the socialist) wants everyone to have the same things and for nobody to be more successful than another, no matter what their skills are. It’s ultimate “equality” and is typically forced onto people, and those who refuse to participate are punished. Capitalism is closer to generosity than socialism is, in my eyes, because it’s two (or more) people making a mutual agreement and exchange that benefit both parties. Ie. I do something you need done, you give me something I want in exchange for my services. You have something I want, I have something you want, we trade off. Also… I found this really amusing.”Property rights exist under both systems. Property can only exist when a good is scarce, this is why gold and land can be owned, while there’s no need for air ownership.”It’s not that there’s no need for air ownership (which really, I can agree with you, there’s not), it’s that there’s no possibility of it and any attempt to claim ownership would be pointless. Unless, well, you have an air compressor or an oxygen tank or something similar, in which case the objects belong to you and, consequently, the air they contain. 

splots-prlrlllssshhhh:

liberty-skin-okc:

salenin:

The shear stupidity is astounding.

Care to elaborate on why you think that?

This is not really how it works, and the phrasing for the definition for both is actually wrong.

  • Capitalism is defined by private ownership of pretty much anything that requires and has property rights. This includes the mediums of production, which in turn includes but are not limited to anything healthcare, food and education related. This means an individual can own by itself a whole hospital, or a school, or a farm and its distribution chains, in theory (in practice they’re owned by small groups of people in the form of corporations or similar).
  • Socialism is defined by common ownership of the mediums of production. Everything that produces (or ‘creates jobs’) is owned by the collective, also colloquially known as the people or everyone. Thus, anything that produces something, again including hospitals, is owned by and is property of everyone.

Property rights exist under both systems. Property can only exist when a good is scarce, this is why gold and land can be owned, while there’s no need for air ownership.

Now I’ll expand on the implications and consequences of both definitions.

The main implication of private ownership is that since valuable things are scarce and more likely to be owned by someone else, one has to trade one valuable good for another. And to have property in the first place one has to trade one’s body labor and time for something else.

This is not generosity, generosity is to give away. Capitalism is not generosity because one gives away to earn something that is considered more valuable. Now that’s what I’d call selfishness.

The main implication of common property instead of private is that there’s no need for such trade to happen, only work. By working to improve what belongs to everyone, then one naturally earns what one needs to live and be healthy, including education, food, transportation, housing and the like.

This is not selfishness, selfishness is to want to take what does not belong to one. Socialism is not selfishness because one works for the greater good. Now that’s what I’d call generosity.

I think I cleared most of this up on my stance here in the prior reblog, as well as a few other things Salenin said, if you’d like to take a look. But, before I go into this with you I want to state that I do not believe socialism is a bad thing when it is 100% voluntary. (in other words, nobody is being forced to participate in a collective or to offer ‘free’ services) 

Socialism, in my eyes, typically implies selfishness because it implies that one (the socialist) wants everyone to have the same things and for nobody to be more successful than another, no matter what their skills are. It’s ultimate “equality” and is typically forced onto people, and those who refuse to participate are punished. Capitalism is closer to generosity than socialism is, in my eyes, because it’s two (or more) people making a mutual agreement and exchange that benefit both parties. Ie. I do something you need done, you give me something I want in exchange for my services. You have something I want, I have something you want, we trade off. 

Also… I found this really amusing.
Property rights exist under both systems. Property can only exist when a good is scarce, this is why gold and land can be owned, while there’s no need for air ownership.”

It’s not that there’s no need for air ownership (which really, I can agree with you, there’s not), it’s that there’s no possibility of it and any attempt to claim ownership would be pointless. Unless, well, you have an air compressor or an oxygen tank or something similar, in which case the objects belong to you and, consequently, the air they contain. 

liberty-skin-okc:

salenin:

The shear stupidity is astounding.

Care to elaborate on why you think
Sure. 1. That isnot the definition of capitalism. 2. That is not what Socialism is. Capitalism is the basis that the free market is ruled by supply and demand. It has nothing to do with generosity and is in fact the opposite in many regards. Capitalism is the idea that the better product will win the public demand and the inferior product will fail. This results in layoffs of everyone who works for that person or company. The free market does not care about generosity or the welfare of other. Socialism is the idea that the means of production, or the industry as a whole would be controlled by the workers who labor and produce the goods and in return purchase them. Socialism is not the concept that you get stuff in spite of not working for it, that is our current form of capitalism. Daddy worked hard so now I don’t need to and fuck the workers who make this money for me.


Where was it stated that either of these were actual definitions? Merriam Webster’s definition of Capitalism is “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market” and socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
Capitalism has nothing to do with generosity, you’re right. How ever, no economic system has anything to do with generosity. There is, however, more room for it in a free market than a controlled market. In a controlled economy, such as what we see today in the United States (Crony Capitalism) and other countries, government/collective/authoritative control is met with those business owners supporting the politician or person in charge of controlling the market in some way who will give them breaks and bend the rules for them so that their business may succeed even when it should not. (Ie. Bailouts/corporate welfare, etc) It also brings about lobbyists from said businesses, who advocate for laws that would help their business crush competing businesses. (ie. minimum wage) You also have various forms of taxation, which takes money earned by a business and it’s workers to feed the government/collective and any of the businesses they see fit. This would apply to socialism, cronyism, etc. Any system where there is a collective controlling everything. This is where greed roots; Collectivism and control. You act as though competition is a bad thing, it’s not. If a business goes completely down hill due only to competition, it’s because they didn’t want to compete and keep up with the market’s demands. Like, if Samsung continued to make nothing more than low tech flip-phones while Apple met the markets demands for smartphones, Samsung wouldn’t be that successful. They’d still be in business, but not near as good of shape as Apple. But as far as the worker and layoffs go, take a look at Hostess… Hostess completely caved in on itself and shut down due to poor business practice and laborers not willing to work under those who were screwing the company. But, there were competitors looking for people with experience in that field to swipe up those who were left without a job after Hostess’s downfall. Bimbo, Sarah Lee, and Little Debbie are some examples. (Someone I know worked for Hostess for years and was hired by Sarah Lee after Hostess closed down.) What’s to say that there wouldn’t be other competitors there for a theoretical business ready to expand and hire more people? ”Daddy worked hard so now I don’t need to and fuck the workers who make this money for me.”That just sounds like petty jealousy mixed with a generalization of kids who inherit or are born into money to me. Let me also add that I don’t think socialism or any form of collectivism is a bad thing when it’s done in a 100% voluntary manner. Different people want different things, I get that. But don’t force me to live in a manner in which I do not wish to. 

liberty-skin-okc:

salenin:

The shear stupidity is astounding.

Care to elaborate on why you think

Sure. 1. That isnot the definition of capitalism. 2. That is not what Socialism is. Capitalism is the basis that the free market is ruled by supply and demand. It has nothing to do with generosity and is in fact the opposite in many regards. Capitalism is the idea that the better product will win the public demand and the inferior product will fail. This results in layoffs of everyone who works for that person or company. The free market does not care about generosity or the welfare of other. Socialism is the idea that the means of production, or the industry as a whole would be controlled by the workers who labor and produce the goods and in return purchase them. Socialism is not the concept that you get stuff in spite of not working for it, that is our current form of capitalism. Daddy worked hard so now I don’t need to and fuck the workers who make this money for me.

Where was it stated that either of these were actual definitions? Merriam Webster’s definition of Capitalism is “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market” and socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”


Capitalism has nothing to do with generosity, you’re right. How ever, no economic system has anything to do with generosity. There is, however, more room for it in a free market than a controlled market. In a controlled economy, such as what we see today in the United States (Crony Capitalism) and other countries, government/collective/authoritative control is met with those business owners supporting the politician or person in charge of controlling the market in some way who will give them breaks and bend the rules for them so that their business may succeed even when it should not. (Ie. Bailouts/corporate welfare, etc) It also brings about lobbyists from said businesses, who advocate for laws that would help their business crush competing businesses. (ie. minimum wage) You also have various forms of taxation, which takes money earned by a business and it’s workers to feed the government/collective and any of the businesses they see fit. This would apply to socialism, cronyism, etc. Any system where there is a collective controlling everything. This is where greed roots; Collectivism and control. 

You act as though competition is a bad thing, it’s not. If a business goes completely down hill due only to competition, it’s because they didn’t want to compete and keep up with the market’s demands. Like, if Samsung continued to make nothing more than low tech flip-phones while Apple met the markets demands for smartphones, Samsung wouldn’t be that successful. They’d still be in business, but not near as good of shape as Apple. But as far as the worker and layoffs go, take a look at Hostess… Hostess completely caved in on itself and shut down due to poor business practice and laborers not willing to work under those who were screwing the company. But, there were competitors looking for people with experience in that field to swipe up those who were left without a job after Hostess’s downfall. Bimbo, Sarah Lee, and Little Debbie are some examples. (Someone I know worked for Hostess for years and was hired by Sarah Lee after Hostess closed down.) What’s to say that there wouldn’t be other competitors there for a theoretical business ready to expand and hire more people? 

Daddy worked hard so now I don’t need to and fuck the workers who make this money for me.”

That just sounds like petty jealousy mixed with a generalization of kids who inherit or are born into money to me. 

Let me also add that I don’t think socialism or any form of collectivism is a bad thing when it’s done in a 100% voluntary manner. Different people want different things, I get that. But don’t force me to live in a manner in which I do not wish to. 

salenin:

The shear stupidity is astounding.

Care to elaborate on why you think that?

salenin:

The shear stupidity is astounding.

Care to elaborate on why you think that?

You all are sick. I’m going on my auto-cannibalistic diet next week!

You all are sick. I’m going on my auto-cannibalistic diet next week!

I respect a mans right to not be a father to the child he helped create just as much as I respect a mothers right to do the same, but that doesn’t mean I won’t lose respect for either for doing so.

talesof4chan:

What happens when your picture is better than your green texttalesof4chan.tumblr.com

talesof4chan:

What happens when your picture is better than your green text
talesof4chan.tumblr.com