Government simply do not know how to manage money

They ask for 2 billion for a high-speed train in 2012

And now they want 10 billion for a train that is smaller now

And there are literally asshole billionaires who dont actually help people

Bill Gates for example has been a deterrent to the economy of Africa for years

How can Africa ever hope to stabilize when there are free stuff that keep pouring in for no reason

Did India ever get asshole billionaire ruining their country after their independence?

Ofc not

Without asshole 1%ers India was able to be self sufficient

And now emerging economic superpower

Okay wait, multiple of those claims need a source

And most of that is bullshit

The only reason India is currently an economic powerhouse is because they’re selling their workers to China and getting major investment from China therefore invalidating your point of investment halting sufficiency @Techpriest

And what you’re saying is wealth inequality is fine if you eliminate the symptoms of it. I could say the same thing about cancer. Cancer isn’t that bad if you didn’t get weakened and die by it.

@Deleted User yes

That’s also how regular taxation works

taxation more like theft

😎

Yea

State sanctioned theft

Too bad we need taxes

No we don’t

@Komrade Kam that also needs sourcing

@Deleted User dad

https://www.forbes.com/sites/suparnadutt/2018/05/01/how-china-is-positioning-itself-among-the-top-10-investors-in-india-despite-bilateral-differences/#1c0ddad71dac

@Chemar

?

Source for China investing in India

In response to @Komrade Kam in <#513098515736690701>

As for socialism / marxism, the biggest issue in general that I have is the surplus labor value. The general idea of the surplus labor value theory is that profit, aka excess labor, exceeds the cost of the worker's labor and is stolen by the greedy capitalist. However, this fails to take into account the mobility of the worker, wherein if a worker feels their labor is not being valued correctly then they have the possibility of simply switching jobs. However, if you are a business owner, you don't have the luxury of simply deciding to have a new business one day, especially if your assets are invested into this business

Furthermore, a worker does not invest assets into a business (generally speaking.) The person providing the menial labor does not have the same risk the person running a business has, and since the person running the business owns these means of productions thus allowing the worker to receive compensation without any risk to themselves, then they are entitled to the profits made. If a worker feels like they deserve the profit that comes with controlling the means of production then, in a free market such as the one we have today, they are able to open their own business. That's the glory of a somewhat regulated free market, a good balance of consumer protection, worker protection, and profit.

Not to mention, the class theory presented is lacking. In the 19th century, sure, most people who owned the means of production were rich and post menial workers were poor, however, nowadays these classes simply have no meaning. A person with a hot dog cart is going to have much less money than a professional footballer player, however according to the outdated marxist class system it should be the opposite way around. Even at the time that the USSR implemented socialism this was true, with many rich peasants aka "Kossaks" being killed. Mind you, being rich simply meant owning a few acres of land more than anybody else.

Need a source for that part, you don't take into consideration the difficulty which goes into finding a new job including the similarity of wages from one job to another in the same industry. The main reason behind the ideas of Socialism is not a question of morality but of sustainability, the idea of risk isn't important for the issue in Marxism as in Marxism the main goal is to solve internal contradiction, in Capitalism the main goal is profit incentivizing the lowering of wages. Through lowering wages, you then lower the ability of the worker to buy the product. Along with that the theory was written in the 19th century. Hence why we have theoretical additions for the modernized world.

Goodnight everybody

The difficulty of finding another job in the same industry is actually not very hard, depending on the industry. If you have a highly specialized career, then there will be less people such as yourself and therefore market demand for you will be high, so mobility would be easy. If you work in, say, the fast food industry, then you don't need to worry about moving to a job in the same industry because your job is low skilled, so you could move to a number of menial labor industries. To simply put it, our society is not meant for you and your family to live off of a McDonald's wage, that's why we have paths to higher education so you can enter one of these career paths with industry mobility and live a happy and productive life. There are other ways to increase profit aside from lowering wages, in fact I would go as far as to say that this is not a good method as you can cut costs in other areas in order to keep a happy and skilled employee from going to a competing company, any industries in which you are seen as disposable is, once again, not a very skill intensive industry.

I'd also like to add on to this and ask, if you yourself admit that marxism needs several theoretical additions for the modern world, why do you call yourself a marxist? Wouldn't that make you some sort of neo marxist? And furthermore, what are these theoretical additions for the modernized world? How do these theoretical additions address the outdated class model, the increased specialization of careers therefore allowing for same industry career mobility, and the fact that lowering wages is not very cost effective when compared to other means of making profit?

The only fault with marxism

is that it doesn't exist at the lower class

it exist at the middle class

the lower class could care less with what happens to the governing class

they're all the same anyway

capitalism or communism, the government can end their life or make their life better