That's not liberty at all. 

 Lol. It was a joke and a fun way to zap.

It's obviously not a real thing. But the dude is a dud and it sends a message perhaps. 

 No. Capitalism has failed. 70% of all the worlds people live on less than 10 dollars a day.  99% of those countries are Capitalist. 

 Capitalism is an economic system based on free trade among interested parties. Nothing more. It cannot fail unless the people partaking are enslaved or jailed perhaps. I have no idea what you are talking about.  I'm heading into work rn to sell products to willing buyers. They want my good I have. Capitalism. 

 We never had capitalism 🤣 

 I hereby hear your argument and zap 500 sats. 

 I see your generous zap and return 210 sats back your way.  

 cringe 

 Oh boo hoo someone doesn't like voluntary transfers of wealth. I guess you'd rather have the state distribute our sats huh? 

 Yes.  When 130 countries have homeless children, all of which are capitalist countries then capitalism has failed.  You don't need to talk about marxism or socialism .  Address the provable present and epic  failure of modern capitalism everywhere around the world.  Socialism hasn't failed in a 130 countries.  Explain capitalism failure. 

 Capitalists zapping capitlaists while  class hard working people lose their jobs, become homeless and go hungry because the billionaire capitlaists own everything.  You can't just chose to be rich.  Its rigged.   A short walk down any street in any city in the world would help you know that. 

 It's called hard work and creativity. Dont be a bitch and try it sometime instead of complaining.

You may also want to run a spellchecker. Yikes 

 No capitalists own other people's labour.   Workers labour time is owned.  You'd know this by comparing pay packets and noticing the discrepancy in reward  or by seeing that unions exist, or that musk isn't actuall yworth billions more than you.  If people were rewarded hard work and hard labour, most women in africa would be  billionaires.  But they arent, because thats how capitalism works: it exploits everyone downward forever until there is on gazillionaire left. 

 You don't even know the definitions of the words you're talking about. Capitalism has nothing to do with owning other people's labor. You haven't completely backwards. No one's making you work for someone else. Capitalism doesn't force you to work for somebody. You are free to choose to work wherever you want and you are entitled to the money you get from the labor you provide. That doesn't mean you're entitled to ask for whatever sum of money you feel like earning.  

 I'm not free to just go work where I want.  I can't just rock up to a beach selling  buckets of sand.  I can't believe how delusional capitalists are.  I CAN  just quit my job, but I lose my home and go hungry. I can do some slave wage work, but I lose my time , energy and dignity, and my home.  Its such a asanine thoughtless thing to say you can just become anything and get rich by choice.  I am 100% sure you make lots of money by exploiting others.  Its the only way you would be able to believe such a thing. 

 Yes you are and yes you can You're just not entitled to make a billion dollars from it.  

 Nobody should have a billion dollars.  That would make everyones standard of living extremely high.  Only the very greedy ignorant, and selfish would opposes such a redistribution of billionaire wealth. 

 Why shouldn't they?  

 There is no legitimate argument for why people shouldn't be able to have an amount of value. Anyone trying to dictate how much value a person can hold is a supporter of tyrants or the tyrant themselves. 

 Capitalists determne how much value people can have.  Have you looked at the world today?   Can I have all your money?  Its a value I want. 

 What you are talking about isn't capitalism. It's central banking 

 Because greed is a sin.  Look around the slums of the world. And ask yourself if they deserve it. 

 Why does the amount of money you have, have anything to do with greed? They have that money because they earned it.  

 Yes there are no greedy wealthy people. 

 greed is an economic constant. Everyone is greedy.  

 Not true.  That is a myth peddled by capitalists.  Everyone is susceptible to bad behavior, that does not mean everyone is choosing to behave badly.  People are also highly keen on sharing.  Capitalists spend an enormous amounts of energy  trying to beat that instinct out of us through schooling and propaganda. 

 WTF are you on about? Capitalism is just what people naturally do. It's not some made up construct. Capitalism just means that you own what you make and are entitled to to any profit from your property.  

 If I put a gun to your head and say work for me for free for the rest of your life you are free to say  no.  

Is your defense of freedom under capitalism? 

 That's not capitalism at all... That's socialism... 

 Sounds like you're just a lazy bum who thinks he's entitled to a "living wage" for just existing and not providing anything to anyone else. ie You think your entitled to the labor of others.  

 It sounds like that to you because you are reductive and can't think properly.  I blame propaganda. 

 No.  Just no. 

 If children are going hungry and shoeless (as millions around the world do) , is that because THEY are lazy bums?

Capitalism fails when it fails children. It fails humanity.  I don't care about your financial arguments, Children shouldn't go hungry because of a system  they were born into that selfish adults obsessed with wealth have failed to address. 

 You realize the poorest people in CaPiTAlIsT USA are far richer than the vast majority of the rest of the world right? Our poorest people are still in the top 1% on a global scale.  

 what does this have to do with my question?  poor avoidance. 

 The point is that children DONT go hungry in capitalist systems...  

 You are delusional. You must speak from a place of great wealth and privilege.  No wonder you blind to the ills of capitalism. 

 But who owns what?  where does the ownership begin? Also  Socialists own their labour but Capitalists own other peoples labour.  But materials and land are owned by everyone! Most capitalists inherit their wealth which means ownership is indefinite , and why rules made by 13c lords in England means their families own most of the land (real wealth) today.  Its rediculous.

Inequality is grwoing, that is the whole point of
 capitalism.  To grow your share indefinitely.   Its the 
law for companies to maximise shareholder profit.  Illegal if they don't.  Endless expansion is the law of capitalism.   And they are doing 
very well at it.The rest are not.  They can't play, they have no chips, no land, no resources.  Its rigged.  Socialism fixes this. 

 Capitalism most certainly does NOT mean you own anything you produce. Maybe if you own your own business, but if you have a boss, your boss owns all the fruits of your labor.

Capitalism means those with the wealth to do so are able to own the means of production, the space, tools, and materials needed to produce the things society depends on. It means you're free to sell your labor, but your boss owns everything that labor produces. 

 If I'm not free to sell my labor at my discretion, do I really own it?

If I own a business, doesn't that mean I privately own the means of production? 

 I think you'd be able to own what's needed for you to do your own work. I don't think you'd be able to own what's needed for many to work. So you could own a craftsman's tools, but you couldn't own a factory or a business in which many craftsmen work and you solely own the goods and labor they produce. You might be able to band together and form something akin to a modern day co-op where everyone owns a share of the business, though. I guess it'd depend on how the core ideas are implemented. 

 So in communism, I can't make anything of consequence without having a boss first? I can only make and own doodads? 

 I think you could do your own work and receive compensation for it. I think you could produce meaningful goods. I don't think you'd be able to own the work of others, so if you and other similarly skilled workers collaborated, you couldn't appoint yourself CEO and own the fruits of their labors. You'd have to form something more like a co-op where ownership is shared. 

 OK, so I can sell my work. How is that not the exact same thing as selling my labor? And that work can be more than doodads, it can be things people actually need. How is that not me owning the means of production? 

 You could be an independent laborer, or you could maybe work in something like a co-op where workers have a direct fair share of profits, but the business structure in which your boss completely owns the fruits of your labor because he owned the machines and paid you a wage related more to ease of replacing you than the value you produce would not be allowed, so there would be nobody to sell your labor to in the conventional sense, but you could collaborate and contribute your labor to something you actually got an equitable share of profits from. Communists would point out that you've sold your labor for less than it's worth in every single job you've ever held because that is the inherent nature of wage labor under capitalism. Your boss will only ever hire you if he thinks you will produce more value than the wage you agree to because that's the only way he can generate profits for himself. Anything else would make them no money or cost them money and therefore be bad business. 

 Would you invest your time in something, in other words sell your labor, for just your basic needs to be covered from it? Don't you want something extra for your time?

Isn't it my decision if I've sold my labor for what I think it is worth?

So all of this is just a way to keep people from making a profit? 

 Sure, I'd want more, but there's nothing central to communism that'd prevent me from getting it. A reason, successful implementation of communism would need to see your needs met AND enough surplus to pursue reasonable interests and goals in exchange for your contributions. You should be free to sell your labor, but communists view the capitalist system as inherently coercive because you're forced to sell your labor under threat of homelessness and starvation. I'd guess they'd want to provide basic needs so you were free to negotiate fairly and uncoerced to earn the surplus needed for those interests and goals. 

 So, how does a system provide for the basic needs of everybody? Who produces these basic needs? And then, if your basic needs are met such that you don't have to do anything for them, what do you do to get your extra? Produce someone else's basic needs and get a profit from that? So who pays that profit if not the guy who's basic needs are met?

Do you see how this concept doesn't hold water? 

 I don't think this seems that complicated. Imagine the same amount of work gets done, but we direct efforts towards ensuring basic needs are met first. Hell, say we lose a quarter of the work to inefficiencies and time off for workers. Stop producing most absurdly high end luxury items that 99.9% of society can't enjoy, cut back on producing frivolous shit nobody needs, and accept that having your every conceivable whim catered to for a price may not be feasible, but you'll live in quality conditions. I'm not saying it's the right call, but it's not that complicated. That's not the hard part. The hard part is running an administration for an entire country's economy and keeping the corruption out at that scale. It creates centralized points of failure, which are highly attractive to corrupt individuals. 

 There is no difference between personal and business property because the line is grey and blurred.
To even talk about something on Nostr is to advertise it… which is a business. 

 They are different things, because for business, you can use private, public or common property, and also personal property. The type of property does not imply the type of use that can be given to it. 

 If I zap you bitcoins, that's a business 

 Yes, but this does not imply that the type of property changes. In socialism you can do small businesses with personal property, in that system what is important is your contribution to society and that your actions do not harm the rest of the community (that is why private ownership of the means of production and speculation is not allowed). 

 So I can sell 3d printed doodads, but not apples at the farmers market? 

 By that reasoning, Money is not a means of production either. Therefore Marx would be against redistributing people's Money. So which is it? 

 Marx did not speak of redistributing people's money, that is something proper to social-democratic and progressive ideology and that is confused with Marxist theories. In Marxism, redistribution is done through the joint ownership of the means of production and the prohibition of the exploitation of man by man. 

 So by your braindead logic, is cryptocurrency property?  Can Marxists steal Bitcoin? 

 The line between personal and means of production gets blurred to become meaningless.  For example even right now I'm talking in a personal sense, but I'm also selling a business.

I am not willing to comply with your call to action, so it's pure violence if you get your way.  I will resist to the best of my ability and try to kill you.

If your violence does work, then
To get around your violent call to action, I would declare everything personal.  And then use barter trades to avoid money.  Everything is personal. 

 Where did I make a call to action? I can point out that you don't understand an idea without myself adhering to it. 

 The world is too tired of this commie crap of having to share land with others. People just want to make their own cash and own their property. We don't want your faggot commie shit. 

 My dude, you're literally responding to a note where I said you could own your cash and property. And I didn't even say I'm in favor of communism, I'm just tired of dumbasses slapping the label on anything they don't like 

 What if I want to own the means of production for a certain product? What if I want to own tools? Your post which I replied to clearly went against me owning those.  

 I think you'd be okay to own whatever you can personally use. The main issue communism intends to combat is the power wielded, unfairly in their opinion, by those who own and control what is needed by others. You could own the tools and space needed for your own craft, but you couldn't own a factory in which many work and solely own the goods and profit generated by many. 

 I disagree with the later being an issue. If, for example, you fear a time of monopoly is coming, you should have less kids, perhaps only one, and guarantee that he has lots of wealth and property.
A shortage of workers usually damages big corpos if they don't go for automation, and if they do, I would argue you're better off marrying a daughter of yours to one of these big corpo CEOs.
 

 Again, not saying I'm advocating for communism, but letting the super rich devastate the economy through monopolies to the point you have to limit yourself to just one kid is also not the right call. Just look at how China's one child policy backfired. Plus, we've got a bunch of countries worried about population decline and demographics changes, which this would only exacerbate. 

 The super rich don't devastate the economy. The state with its ridiculous tax rates, handouts to shitskin invaders and feminist divorce laws does.
If countries are worried about demographic changes, they can focus on Total Nigger Death and Total Pajeet Death, the source of this evil. 

 Are you familiar with the gilded era in the US? The monopolies that earned the richest the title of robber Barron's? They'll absolutely devastate the economy if they can make a buck off of it. They do the best because they have the means to buy up all the assets the poor and unfortunate are forced to sell. And they're fucking ecstatic you're dumb enough to blame it one foreigners and not the rich getting them visas to give your job away.

Racism is a skill issue. It's people who think they can't compete, and instead of taking steps to improve themselves, they take the coward's route of blaming and tearing down others for their shortcomings. Get good and quit your bitching. Someone like you should be thankful for divorce laws so any poor woman who has the misfortune of marrying you can get away without killing you. 

 Also, China's one child policy only backfired in part because it's still a feminist country. It lacks patriarchy so poor and middle class men marry less and have kess kids.  

 Lol. Lmao, even. 

 Neck yourself.  

 Eat my ass, pedo Nazi scum 

 So I can own funko pops but not 3d printers? 

 I can only speculate, and I'm not an expert, just someone who understands the basic concepts, but I'll try as best I can. I'd imagine you could still own a hobbyist 3D printer at a minimum. Industrial ones might be difficult to get, but you could probably get print time on an industrial one as needed. It'd probably depend on how common they were and how important they were. If they were being used to produce important goods and we didn't have as many as we wanted for those goods, it'd get hard to get one. If there's enough that distributing some of the professional printers wouldn't disrupt infrastructure, I'd guess you could get your hands on one. 

 Wait, you have to be an expert to understand communism? So you're telling me you wholeheartedly believe in something you don't understand?

So I can own a 3d printer, unless I want to make anything consequential with it, then I can't, do I have that right? 

 No, I never said I believed in it. Why is it impossible to point out that people don't understand communism without them thinking you're advocating for it?

And no, you don't have that quite right. You could own a printer that could produce things, but you couldn't own a printer that *mass* produces stuff, unless there were so many that allowing it didn't disrupt infrastructure. I hope that wording is clearer. 

 You just said you don't understand communism enough to explain it to me. Maybe you're the one that's wrong about communism here?

OK so you're not advocating for it, I misunderstood.

OK so I can produce things, just not mass produce them. Can I sell the things I produce to people?

What does that mean, "disrupt infrastructure"? 

 I understand the core ideas, but different attempts to implement will differ in the finer details. I can approximate the communist response, but there's a wealth of literature and thought on the subject that I haven't explored. I read the Communist Manifesto to understand the basic tenets, and that's it.

I think you could produce and sell goods, but some implementations of a communist state may differ.

As for disrupting infrastructure, I'll give an example. Let's say we develop nice, fast 3D printers that can print metal in a durable way. Say there's some widget used in future tech that can only be 3D printed and must be made of metal for some reason. Under a communist state, if production capacity wasn't meeting the needs of the people, the government would have the authority to confiscate capable printers and reallocate them to production of those critical goods. It should be noted, however, that most hobbyist printers *today* wouldn't be fast enough to be worth confiscating even if they could work with the right materials, but even if that changes, it won't change the fact that there's often a huge difference between a tool for an end user and a tool for mass production, and communism is primarily concerned with the latter, not the former. 

 > As for disrupting infrastructure, I'll give an example. Let's say we develop nice, fast 3D printers that can print metal in a durable way. Say there's some widget used in future tech that can only be 3D printed and must be made of metal for some reason. Under a communist state, if production capacity wasn't meeting the needs of the people, the government would have the authority to confiscate capable printers and reallocate them to production of those critical goods.

Why not just, pay those people to produce them with their printers?  

 That may actually be a valid way to handle it. As long as the state is seeing resources allocated towards producing the required goods, I suppose the job is done. 

 But that's what we have right now, its called capitalism! 

 Kind of, yeah, but I think that'd only be done when they just need a little more, not a huge boost in production. What if they need every machine they can get running 24/7 because it's critical for farming in a drought that could cause a famine, or because it's part of a weapon needed in a defensive war? Modern printers are slow and can take hours to print large objects, so maybe you're willing to wake up every couple hours overnight to start a new piece for a good cause, but what if the printers they need finish a part in only 30 minutes? Are they willing to trust such critical production to run without direct oversight when people might slack off? What if hobbyists can produce enough, but the logistics of shipping them from all over the US (just as a hypothetical, it's big and poses logistical problems) would put excessive strain on postal services or take way more work to properly coordinate? In low stakes scenarios, enticing people to contribute with pay may be sufficient, but when the tool and what it makes is critical, bigger steps may be viewed as necessary and within the authority of the state to take, and they might include confiscating the tools and redistributing them to directly increase production. 

 But, we do that now with just about everything and stuff gets produced just fine. People don't slack off because they have a personal investment in their work, no threat of Siberia required. If there's a shortage, people are incentivized to produce because prices go up and it's profitable, no central planning required. Wouldn't you rather have a self organizing, distributed system than one with all kinds of administration overhead and central points of failure and misaligned incentives?

You say you're not advocating it, just explaining it, but can't you see how it's senseless? 

 Look, I'm only explaining things because the OP's idea of confiscating nostr keys isn't some gotcha against communism. Everything else has been me with a basic understanding doing my best to field questions from people who apparently know even less than I do. I probably made some mistakes along the way. I'm not saying it's an improvement, just doing my best to explain the ideology as I understand it to people who seem to be asking honest questions. If you understand that I'm not advocating for it, why are you asking me about its sensibility like I'm a believer? We're already straining what I know, so I think it's best I stop speculating and recommend you not take every last word I said as gospel. It's a decent approximation, but I'm sure I could be corrected by an actual communist. 

 I think his point was to demonstrate lack of internal consistency, and I think he's being facetious to try to demonstrate that the theory around it is a bunch of inconsistent corner case justifications and there's no rhyme or reason to any of it.

I am asking honest questions, but I am doing so to try to understand *your* reasoning, not to understand communism, I already thoroughly understand it. And I'm hoping, in having to articulate answers to my questions, you'll understand it more clearly and come to the same conclusion I did, that it is senseless. I don't like to do the usual thing where I shit on people, I like to have sincere discussion and maybe I learn something and maybe other people do. I am always open to the possibility that it isn't senseless and that I am wrong.

Explaining it to people while claiming you don't agree with it is like explaining the rationale behind astrology while claiming you don't agree with it; if you don't agree with it it is because it makes no sense to you at all. It's really impossible to explain methodically or rationally something that doesn't make any sense.  

 I haven't been making judgments, though, so the only insight you've managed to gain into my reasoning is the depth of my understanding of communism. You ask questions, I do my best to guess what a communist would say. The ideology may be flawed, but it's fairly coherent. Having some flawed logic doesn't make it utterly incomprehensible, and even if we don't agree with the conclusions it draws, it sheds light on the grievances people held or hold, and it prepares you to make your own informed judgment. I don't care how anyone feels about communism, I'm just tired of not being able to have nice things like healthcare because people don't understand that politicians and news pundits are lying to them when they call it communism to stop businesses from literally price gouging you to death. 

 Oh I'm with you, I am very upset about all this stuff going on on society also. We share grievances with the way things work right now. But I think I know what causes them and what the solutions are. The cause isn't capitalism, it's government manipulation of markets, and the solution isn't communism, it's the opposite. Remember when people could afford to go to the doctor? That was when people just paid the doctor for services like any other merchant. Same with education. It is only after governments got involved and these inefficiencies were created and insurance and guaranteed loans and stuff were made inseparable from the industries via regulation that we find ourselves in this situation. You can see the same thing with housing, withinimum square footage requirements and stuff like that, basically any unaffordable thing that people need is unaffordable because of regulations protecting incumbents and preventing new entrants from competing. 

 'Remember when people could afford to go to the doctor?'

no! 

 That's because you're a small child. 

 so no regulation on food or drugs or waste dumping would improve all those things eh? 

 well said.  mister_monster does  not seem to be engaging in good faith.  Funny, because that is also something Marx says is necessary to maintain capitalisms hold over the poor - lying and cheating is the fastest way to get rich. 

 you won't read marx because you don't agree with it?  Most wealthy capitalists understand exactly what marx says in Das Capital and agree with him.  Those are the capitalists who are very rich  BECAUSE they understand t capitalism and the declining rate of profit etc.  Marx describes capitalism as it is.  Thats useful for communists and capitalists alike. 

 if the price goes up some people won't be able to afford the goods, and thats were the problem of capitalism arrises (assuming this is an essential good) 

 where the problem of capitalism arises*