Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network issues. Refreshing the page usually helps. The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. You are currently reading a thread in /b/ - Random
>>581118409 Actually that's failed Socialism big dog. Pouring shit tons of money into a populace to give them a chance at an "equal life". Capitalism in it's real form is not violent. Voluntary transaction of a good/service/currency for a good/service/currency. Not violent at all. Now, if you mix a government in with it, it will have a violent factor to it because government is a system based on violence.
>>581118845 No. It's the fallout of an erroneous system used to determine the distribution of wealth. It's the symptom of economic disparity caused by unrestrained capitalism. Which, btw, has now morphed into corporate fascism.
>>581118845 at the moment you allow tho concentrate wealth someone will have more than he need and someone less that he need. >capitalism >non violent >uneducated pleb with no significant knowledge of the rest of the world
Actually, the free market rises people out of poverty. Corporatism is something many people mistake for Capitalism. Big companies buy out politicians. Those politicians then make laws benefiting those companies, etc., etc. Corporatism in a nutshell.
>>581119689 I look at it like a family. One or two people work, and their work defines the income. But the kids and old people don't work. They need to be supported by the family. If somebody works harder and better than others, he or she should be rewarded. If somebody is trying hard to find a job, but society has none for him, he should be supported too. It's a mix...
>>581119517 Okay so stealing from someone is okay because they have more money? Stop trying to act like you're better because you don't understand the concept of government, etc. Also, a majority of these super-rich gained there money because of corporatism.
>For wealth-distribution (something that is guaranteed to fail) >Wealth-distribution is theft >Theft is violent
>>581119159 >then i sure hope not to see the worst this anon knows
>>581116973 >Any pure system is trouble, though. yoou idiot, there has been no pure system, ever, so how would you know The only pure system ever devised was a work of fiction. In that utopia, the system is not controlled by any higher teir ranking human, it is an ideal, a social communism way of life.
>>581119831 People don't usually get rich in Capitalist societies by hard work. That is a myth used to keep people working. The wealthy get richer through nepotism and other opportunities which are generally unavailable to poorer social classes.
>>581120552 Sure I agree that capitalism has it's good points; however, I think that it can also be brutal. I don't agree that wealth should be concentrated in an ultra rich minute portion of the population while the majority suffer from poverty related ailments. Anecdotally, I'm a Canadian who regularly crosses the border into the US. If I was an ignorant person who never visited the US and believed pop culture I would be convinced that America is where dreams are made; however, because I go there quite regularly I also see that it is a place where nightmares are more common. Poverty in the US as opposed to Canada (which has a better social infrastructure) is way worse.
>>581120115 >Okay so stealing from someone is okay >so stealing from >stealing who talked about stealing? >and their work defines the income if you dared to open your eyes to see what capitalism has done to other countries, to see that corporations try to make as many as possible without thinking about their employees, cutting salarys so much that you can HARDLY buy the BASICS like FOOD. so tell me now... WHO IS STEALING FROM WHO? or are you telling me that whats happening in mexico right now is that some yell fed people start rioting for fun?
>>581121114 Going to a desert across the planet to get shot at by people is likely the only option for some people who are trying to pull ahead financially and make a better life for themselves and their family. I think in a way that the military is a prison for some people, but yeah, I get what you're saying.
>>581121263 I've opened my eyes. I tried looking at major economic/political systems and I realized what the problem is. It's the government. Government is a violent, coercive monopoly that controls it's people like they're sheep. They use force (throwing you in a cage, death) if you do not listen to their immoral policies. Capitalism in not violent. Again, it's a voluntary transaction for a good/service/currency for a good/service/ currency.
communism is only plausible when humans stop breaking laws and are so held down by a moral obligation to improve the community that laws are no longer required. This being the human race, that is impossible.
>>581122694 but the concept of capitalism isn't based on the regard of communal interest and the preference thereof over personal interest. Communism is built upon a 'brotherhood of man', which in real terms, is all but impossible. Therefore, since capitalism is built on 'allowing' criminal action, it doesn't self implode when it becomes permeated with criminals, as opposed to communism.
>>581118001 Capitalism is non-violent, are you fucking kidding me? Ignoring all of the proxy wars it starts elsewhere just to maintain itself, it's potential for violence against its own people is latent, and terrifying when activated
>>581123196 that's not an implosion though, because the system doesn't change. It's simply the end of one cycle and the start of another. Ironically, it hasn't changed over human history that much. Basically:
1. have capitalist system 2. huge wage gap 3. bad harvest or other catalyst 4. revolution 5.turmoil and instability 6. going back to 'tried and trusted' values 7. works for a while 8.rinse and repeat.
The capitalist system is self-perpetuating as it recognizes humans as individuals, and thus never actually 'implodes', but recycles. Communism, on the other hand, as nice as it sounds, is simply not viable. It's been tried once, and failed miserably in the USSR, North Korea, China, Vietnam,etc. The only viable communist system is cuba, but that's cause it supported by other 'socialist', but for all intents and purposes capitalist south american republics.
>>581123628 Yes, both systems are not immune from imploding. The problem with using Russia as an example though is it wasn't really Russia itself that caused the crash of the Soviet Union, it was the collective effort of republics that were basically forced to become members against their will.
>>581123921 I was talking about it's first revolution, should've been more clear. I can't stress enough that the government is behind this mess. They monopolize currency, education, the economy, and so much more so they can get the control and power.
>Wealth-distribution is based on theft render unto caeser the things that are caeser's it can't be theft if the state own the money, and the people own the state
>Theft is violent not really >A system based on violence can't stand it probably could >Violence breeds more violence hate can't kill hate, at least but i don't think 'wealth distribution' leads to a dramatically increased murder rate or anything
>>581124267 yeah, only because it was supported by the USSR, then Venezuela and the south & central Americas. If Cuba were left to be, it would not function properly. Capitalism encourages efficiency, as one tries to minimize cost. This leads to specialization, which ultimately leads to more consumer choice. The human psyche is built on owning 'stuff', and showing off your stuff, because that's how humans are wired. A communist system would misallocate resources immensely because it simply cannot keep up with the efficiency of the concepts of market supply & demand, which automatically cancel eachother out. Had Cuba been incubated and left to its own devices I can assure you it would have collapsed completely.
>>581116272 All systems degrade over time, concentration of wealth, abused benefit systems, control of resources, standstills in government decision or government decisions contrasting with public needs. Best solution is a hard reset.
>>581116272 also a lot of people saying about how things need to be equal, or people going on about anarchism. You're in a shit position because you, or your family, or your country are shit. People who are doing better in life than you are doing so because they are better than you. That is just how life works, it's nature and you might as well go cry about it for all the difference you or anyone else could possibly make to change the fact that life is not fair/
The government is run by the people. To make the presumption that all government in this world are oligarchies simply tells me that you are not an active voter, and cringe at the notion of a politician, cause you believe they're scum.
Government is vital to the running of a nation. Who else would invest in roads? Welfare? Education? The free market? I mean sure, I'm all for it in theory, but the notion that government is a grand oligarchy is ridiculous, for a number of reasons, the most important of which being how far you're generalizing when it comes to governments. Not all systems are the same, ministers and presidents are voted out of office. The nature of government dictates that changes are slow, but that doesn't mean that they are non-existent or that the government simply seeks to leech. The only way a government can sustain itself is through votes. How do you get votes? You keep the people happy. How do you keep the people happy? You do things they want. Therefore, people run and regulate government.
>>581124695 Well, that's your opinion. I see it differently. I think that with complete isolation, Cuba would have had no other option than to embrace extreme socialism. People's first instinct would have to be to share resources in order to survive. Then, after some time, some middle man who figured out how to exploit the system would then implement capitalist tendencies in order to gather wealth by essentially doing nothing.
>>581124674 You'd still have accidents, unless you wanted to pay for that Mercedes you wrote off in cash, unions are to stop companies from taking the piss to make maximum profits at the publics expense, you try running a multi billion dollar company for 40k with 1 week holiday and see how quick you start falling to bits
regardless, my argument would stand even if i only wrote "it can't be theft if the state own the money" everything else is just a side-note
>All governments in this world are Oligarchies because of capitalist influence >You're not using logic if you thing theft is not violent violence is harmful physical force it even comes from the latin for 'force'
>>581125367 I do vote. I vote Libertarian. I'm generalizing governments because governments are all the same, violent systems that are meant to control. Also, the free market, charity, and a communities could handle all of those issues.
>>581125507 It would if we didn't allow the exploitation to happen. By regulating the economy and by controlling the distribution of wealth. By eliminating the ability to transfer resources to undesignated people, companies, etc. Case in point, social services (welfare) in Canada pays their recipient's rent directly in order to avoid the scenario of the person spending their rent money on other things. I just don't think that the majority of people are responsible with money.
>>581125967 Exploitation is controlling the resources. If person A and person B both want a particular good, and person B is willing to offer more to obtain that good, then person B should get it. Saying person B doesn't deserve it and giving it to Person A is inefficient, and is exploitative of market centralization
>>581126146 It's mostly a personal opinion, he's damn smart that's not the problem. But when I listen to his videos he talks over you and treats the viewer like an airheaded idiot. Whilst Milton engages you with an argument and challenges your perception of the world.
capitalism, because not all humans deserve to have a good life. People should be exploited, and the people with enough motivation and intelligence to make money at any cost should be rewarded, not penalized.
>>581126413 Sure, but then we go back to the fact that the capitalist free-market system is inherently tainted by nepotism and inequal opportunity. If capitalism was merely 'work hard, get rewarded' I'm sure it would be successful, but millions of people work extremely hard their whole lives and walk away with nothing while someone born with a silver spoon in their hand gets to reap all of the lovely benefits of a system designed by the rich to keep the rich wealthy. Imagine working for a year to save up for something that you want only to find out that it was bought out from under you by a person who didn't work at all that year because they were born into a wealthy family. That's not opportunity, it's injustice.
>>581126845 >capitalism, because not all humans deserve to have a good life. People should be exploited, and the people with enough motivation and intelligence to make money at any cost should be rewarded, not penalized.
Post your address. I'll come exploit you. It's what you want right?
>>581125815 Listen, I'm all for a spectrum of opinions, but if you want to validate your generalization, you should do more than simply reinforce that you have this generalization. I'd love a libertarian system, where the measure of your own worth is how much you can make out of yourself. However, a society is only as strong as it's weakest link. Therefore, you have to account for a broad spectrum of people who think differently, and thus cause inefficiency. The government serves the role of holding the fabric of a society together, this mosaic of different opinions if you will. Assuming everyone and their mother was libertarian, that system would work perfectly. But because of the nature of human beings, and human compassion for the disenfranchised, you simply cannot implement that. Would you give to a beggar on the street, if you saw he was on the verge of death by starvation? Charity is not a viable safety net, as it is not steady income; it is sporadic. A government has enough funds to hold down a society, as it collects taxes. Charities can't. If they did, they'd be governments.
>>581125967 If you redistribute wealth, one of the things you do is level off the income curve at a certain point as you draw more and more money for welfare, in essence imposing a limit on how much a person can make, based solely of the sweat of his brows. Why and how is that valid? I mean, I know welfare is important, but that's why I pay taxes. The notion that the "1%" should be punished is wrong. That is where someone develops a victim complex. That is wrong. Just because I have something shiny doesn't mean you are entitled to it; you are entitled to have enough assistance to make ends meet. Redistribution of incomes, and by extension, communism, take away from that innate desire to work hard and earn more money. Just look at the GDR's economy.
>husband needs medicine to save his dying wife >pharmacist selling it at 10x the production cost >refuses to go lower, it is his drug and he wants to get rich >the husband steals the drug and saves the life of his wife >libertarians will defend the pharmacist from the evil, cruel, violent husband
>>581126845 >the people with enough motivation and intelligence to make money at any cost should be rewarded Is merit a value if you're predetermined ? Btw merit is often praised by people who were born male, white and straight, so it doesn't really make sense.
Listen, seriously. There is no capitalism vs communism. As we move farward on this planet eventually our labor markets will become hyper-saturated. One this occurs the only real viable option is a massive redistribution of resources. At this point the concept of ownership itself becomes more oppresive than it is now, and the coercive systems in place to reinforce the archiac distribution system will inevitably deteriorate, leaving ourselves to figure the most mutually beneficial system of resource distribution/application. This will be a complete lack of a state or any oppressive force, i.e. communism or anarchy. These are just the phases that we as an economic system will have to transition through. Comments?
>>581126890 Capitalism isn't supposed to be about >work hard, get rewarded Capitalism is about competitive advantage. You need to be able to work better. You can work as hard as you want toiling away on something that doesn't matter, and you shouldn't get rewarded, because it doesn't matter. If your company builds a new, better mousetrap, customers will beat a path to your door. If your company builds the old mousetrap, you better think up a new strategy
without getting into the really endless ethical arguments, i'd rather just point out that capitalism relies on individual rationality and produces collective irrationality
you probably already have a good idea of what that means, but if you want to know more, by all means, read as much hegelian philosophy and marxist works of political economy as possible.
if you're going to be a responsible person you should read the great works of liberalism as well to avoid isolating yourself in an echo chamber, though i'm definitely not suggesting nothing is true and everything is permitted
read everything, consume everything, think as much as possible, we need more thinking and new thinking more than ever. good luck
>>581126706 My wife drives a CLK 430 man. My inlaws have a GL. I'm not an idiot.I guarantee I've spent more time behind the wheel of a Benz than you. It is a luxury item. Mercedes isn't concerned about "the common person", they're concerned about their demographical market. Go ahead though, call me names and mock me.
>>581127248 so they should be punished for being born into the superior gender, the superior race, and the superior sexual orientation? There is merit you determine, like how much you effort, and then innate merit such as race and gender and what family you are born into.
If you end up being on the bottom of the ladder and work hard and don't make money, oh well, that sucks for you. These lower class people are still a valuable part of society and should not be ashamed. They do the jobs nobody wants to do while the elite are doing what they do best- making money.
>>581127582 Nothing about capitalism suggests this is the case. There's a reason structural unemployment exist. The demands that workers must meet is constantly changing. It is not fundamental that workers must be uneducated
>>581116272 In either system, cronyism eventually takes root and corrupts it. The only solution under any government is to kill off the top echelon every 20 years and give the new generation a chance at success.
So you can live an awesome life for 20 years or a meh-shit life for your natural lifespan. But it will never happen because
>muh right to life
Fucking humans. One can never sacrifice himself for the good of the colony.
>>581127678 I didn't say that anyone can make it if they work hard enough. That's the exact opposite of what I said. They need to be able to work smart. They need to be able to do something better than others to succeed. Capitalism is about creative destruction.
If I start a farm without any modern equipment, you can best bet I'll work my ass off and I won't succeed nearly as much as farmers using equipment, even though I'm working harder. And rightfully so. Inefficiency shouldn't be rewarded
>>581127558 >superior gender, the superior race, and the superior sexual orientation Can't tell if you're actually serious or not. I guess you aren't. > There is merit you determine, like how much you effort, and then innate merit such as race and gender and what family you are born into. So if you're born with what society depicts as a handicap, you're supposed to provide more work than someone considered "normal" and able ? That sucks. And you're still admitting we're auto-determined. Which is not scientifically proved. Physics even tend to say that determinism is the way things work. Which ends the concept of responsability. And merit as well. It's still an opened philosophy question but yet we built our society over an assumption.
>>581127210 >pharmacist sells the drug at 10x the production cost >husband is assumed to be the everyman, and thus a good example of an average person >Average Joe can't buy drug >nobody ends up buying drug >Pharmacist schmeckles doesn't get rich. >has to reduce the price until market equilibrium is reached
I am fully aware of the fact that drugs are relatively inelastic goods, however inelasticity/elasticity is not absolute and changes as you go down a Price/Quantity analysis. Assuming Dr. Schmeckles has raised the price exorbitantly above the market equilibrium, demand is still going to be elastic to an extent, and thus it is in his best interest to lower the price
>economics, and by extension, capitalism, 101
don't even get me started on if it's a competitive market or not,etc. >>581127792 but then you'd be talking about corruption, which is just as endemic in capitalism as it is in communism. In fact, it is more palpable communism; look at the supreme leaders of North Korea, which makes that irrelevant, don't you think?
>>581128210 i am completely serious. I acknowledge there are people that deserve to be successful but get shat on by life and society, but I don't see that as a problem. Everyone can't get what they deserve. Luck is just as essential as motivation/effort.
Market economy is better than planned economy. ME is by far the best system of organizing that many people in a good, effective way. Planned economy will inevitably lead to an enormous black market, a small elite that rules over the many, corruption and misery for a lot of people.
>>581128063 I don't think you understand. I'm just saying that if you're from a white, wealthy family you will be more likely to be wealthy and have advantages than someone how is, say, black and poor.
They can both work as hard as one another, but the rich white guy will certainly have a better chance to succeed.
There is no level playing field, and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is a sick myth.
>>581128519 Confirmed for privileged shitty human being. Society made you feel so comfortable over the circumstances you were born in, you feel like everything is due to you. You're praising merit while you're the one who most likely showed the least. Fuck you.
>>581128856 That has nothing to do with market structure. You're bringing up racial privilege as if it matters to normative economics. There is already affirmative action to help level the playing field, what more do you want? Corrupting the market will not eliminate racial privilege
>>581128651 Well Stalin pretty much fucked up everything Lenin did. I wouldn't call it communism, but here is just a problem with naming. I think we pretty much agree that the initial communism is completely different from what NK/USSR/China did/do.
>>581128971 that is the application of absolute communism; the "freeza's final form" of communism if you will, but until you get there, you are in various stages of pseudo-communism, which is the closest we've gotten and can get to the real deal.
>>581128797 The free market produces the same result. The free market is free until a handful of people get so rich they begin to manipulate the system to their advantage. Money is a measure of power in capitalism, overriding democracy.
>>581116272 Capitalism is cool and fun, but in it's current state of growing out of control and its only future plan is to consume without any regard for the limit of resources. I feel that capitalism has outlived its usefulness in our world and we should move towards more a socialist planned economy model, at least until we are a space traveling species. Once we have a foothold in space we can start to move towards a more free market model due to the access of more resources.
the last crisis was never fully resolved. some distress exists in foreign markets and in china growth is slowing annually
the can being kicked down the road, of subprime credit and its transition from the financial market into sovereign debt, is going to explode once again, and this time, we'll enter into a very deep global depression. i'm thinking a U6 of anywhere between 25-40%. i doubt that bailouts will be a viable option, considering the mythical amounts of value it would take to do it. no, i think capital itself will have to be devalued either through physical or virtual destruction through debt forgiveness, and both will probably occur via a very large war (not necessarily an apocalyptic world war, but something of very large scale) and debt forgiveness programs
i think the costliness of production especially in times of this impending crisis is going to accelerate the development and investment in robotics, and when a recovery begins to occur without including a large amount of people left without jobs or incomes throughout the world, i think the following will occur
the richest countries for which a universal basic income is possible will attempt a large UBI, and the great majority of countries will not be able to manage it. i think the wild perturbations that a UBI will cause will lead people to take a very large interest in making for themselves what they can't afford in the remaining markets.
so, i think people are going to start leaning on 3D printing and more advanced forms of practically autonomous manufacturing that will have been in development, and that this will roil the existing markets. currency will face wild fluctuations in value, and people will have greater and greater incentives toward these kinds of common, autonomous production. i think this is the point of the death of capitalism. may be not necessarily the death of the market, but certainly the death of the relations of capitalist production
>>581129316 This would be awesome. After people are freed from their dependance on work, economy and state, maybe they'll finally realize they're surrounded by human beings. I truly hope the end of capitalism and the arrival of automation of tasks will mean the beginning of a era of tolerance.
>>581128934 From someone who wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth and still agree with the other guy: fuck you.
It's fucking douchebags like you who think that people like me should pay a higher tax % on our hard earned money so that dumb fucks who spent all their money on shit worth nothing can get some more money to spend.
>>581129201 the thing is even if lenin had gotten his own way he wouldn't have managed an application of absolute communism. Can you imagine how hard it would be to sign your own resignation, shut down the government, and commit to a leap of faith the size of jumping into the unknown world of ownerless property? It would be anarchy, as humans will be humans. If you believe in the bible, Cain had no reason to kill Abel, but did anyway. Why? Because he was jealous. If you don't believe in it as 'holy' or whatever, think of it as the embodiment of the human psyche, which means that man will kill his brother for the stupidest of reasons, whether that be jealousy, property or anything else. Now, tell me, with no claim of rightful ownership to any piece of property, how would that work on humans? Would the clothes on your back be yours? Would you feel defensive about them, as they comprise what's left of your individuality? Of course you would. Now, tell me, would you fight for them? Probably. In that case, how are you to live in communism, where there are no laws and no authority in the form of an unbiased state to enforce them?
>>581128651 Stalinism is really not communist. I would say closer to fascism. There is absolutely no redistribution, no decisions made by the proletariat, and a massive violent government. From each according to their abilities, to eaxh accorfing to their need. NK does neither lol its pretty much literal fascism just like ussr. Thats why Trotsky had to leave its really sad actually :(
>>581129857 No its an advantage of doing business. Reputation can be built easier than skill, but it can be lost easier than school too. And it has an impact on business, so obviously it should and will always be considered. Even in socialist countries, reputation matters. Even when workers own a collective firm, the worker with the reputation of being the least responsible will be assigned the roles which require the least amount of responsibility.
Like I said, corrupting the markets won't bring about the ideal you desire
>>581129305 Not even people grow rich, its wealth systems built on top of the free market. Banks, corporations, and production complexes than transcend human interest. Without liquid wealth and free market, everyones value is exactly the same, ideally infinite :)
>>581129213 Marxist theory states that, there are basically 5 economic systems through the human history. Each system creates it's own internal contradictions that will lead to the next system ("Class struggle is the engine of history").
You start at >Primitive Communism Farming and breeding appear, and so does work division, leading to: >Slavery Contradictions between slaves and citizen lead to the next level when slavery is fully developed (Roman Empire) >Feodalism In feodalism, slowly, bourgeoisie appears, and the way it works requires freedoms that don't exist yet, so you have a contradiction between bourgeoisie and nobles, eventually leading to American War of Independence, French Revolution, etc. and you get to the next level: >Capitalism Capitalism is so fucking fanstastic it quickly spreads to the entire world in a hundred years, but it creates a contradiction between the bourgeoisie (which has become the leading class) and proletaries (who didn't exist before). This contradiction should lead to the final level, >Socialism when Capitalism is fully grown.
In 1917, Russia was an almost feodal country, so growing Socialism there was pretty hard. Lenin knew it and this is why he declared war on Poland. He knew that if the Red Army reached Germany, where there was an ongoing communist revolution, socialism would eventually have a strong base (because German Capitalism was really nice grown). The same applies to China and North Korea. What happened in China, Russia, North Korea was nothing more but State Capitalism.
>>581129904 This is why communism mustn't come from politics but through education. It's not in human nature to be selfish, we're supposed to feel empathy for each other (mirror neurons), we just were raised in a way that made us hate each other for the sake of competitivity. The concept of property will only end when everyone will have understood that it is for the good of all that everything should be shared. And you can't force mindsets upon people through politics, you've to talk with them. It'll take us centuries to barely try to achieve this, but it still is a great idealistic goal to pursue.
Each system has it's flaws and strengths and if used correctly can be the basis of a perfect society. If it's not correctly used, it's because those who control it falter. In communism, control is spread out throughout the population. In order for fuck-ups to occur, a very large portion of the populace needs to be corrupted. In capitalism however, a handful of corrupted individuals can throw the whole system off balance. In a perfect society, it does't matter if we have communism or capitalism or anarchism, because people respect one another and strive for the whole, not to each his own. Since we don't live in such a society, i choose communism, which as stated, needs much more corruption to be thrown off balance. Also, capitalism's biggest plus, its pride, is that people work and gain what they deserve accordingly to how much effort they put in. I want the capitalists who read until this point and therefore have a (hopefully) more open mind to dicussion to tell me this. Do you really believe the the CEO that has a hundredfold bigger income than a common worker, also does a hundredfold more work? Tenfold? Most low class workers work their asses off to make what their bosses spend on a pair of shoes. Is that fair?
>>581130373 The child born into a rich family does not do any business, and yet they still have a leg up.
The family you're born into doesn't speak to your personal merits. As someone said earlier, look at Paris Hilton. She is only famous and rich because her family is. It has nothing to do with her work ethic or ability to produce.
>>581116272 Communism and Capitalism is just opposite sides of the same evil coin, you know how communism works, now this is what capitalism results in, = a global financial elite controlling almost all the wealth = central banks & wallstreet having so much wealth and power that they control the government, yes thats right kiddies the global zionist banking cartel has used their power to turn the US Govt in to their sock puppet and the CIA & US Armed Forces to be their muscle around the world
>>581116272 Look what symbol is representing capitalism in your image. A dollar sign. Well people always assume that capitalists are only interested by money and that capitalism is unfair because in it, individuals are not equal. Well its simply not true. Capitalism is much more fair. In it, the market would be always dynamic and competition encouraged, creating more social mobility. You work for what you get, complete fairness. One last thing : look up the works of Milton Friedman in the field of private charity and you will se it does more good than public charities and is again, fairer because instead of being stolen your money for "healthcare" you willingly give money directly to the poor.
>>581116546 >parliaments Full of Shit, City Workstation, rich people, banks >>581120552 So does communism except you won't gain millions >>581121897 this, we may even expirience the revolution Lenin, engels and many others talked about >>581121950 Today people are forced to work and usually get payed less than their work is worth >>581122189 Society will likely improve, it has to, to even become communist >>581122335 the people who get exploited= workers are still the majority of the population >>581123196 This, anyone knows whwhsaid that as long as capitalism exists it will die off on its own ? >>581126529 This image exists because the capitalist world tries to bash socialist approaches
Capitalism, because I'd rather work for a living than suck government dick.
Serious argument; Capitalism is the absence of regulation, communism is the preponderance of regulation. Yes, mega-corporations can become autocratic entities unto themselves, and I'm not above having government check them, but there's a big difference between mega-corporations and even mid-sized multi-million dollar businesses owned by individuals or small groups. Furthermore, even mega-corporations tend to have more transparency and oversight than government.
How can I be free if I am not free to use, acquire, create, and otherwise control the results of my own effort?
Communism would take away from me in the name of the "greater good" by saying I have no right to my own property. Perhaps it would even offer me some other person's property in return... but I don't want some other person's property. I want my own, to do with as I will, and I want to prosper or fail according to my own actions. I don't want to be beholden to anybody, and I don't want some regulator telling me what to do, how to do it, where to do it, etc.
Communism must be forced upon me, so for me it is necessarily tyrannical. If you want to live in a commune, then feel free to, but kindly fuck off and do it without me.
>>581130586 But the thing is, using that logic, capitalism will never fully grow, as the only thing that ever happens is that the system recycles itself. The french revolution would have been your best bet, but that didn't work. I doubt anything else will, as the gap between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor is becoming smaller when compared to relative historical terms.
>>581130921 If your mother had terminal cancer, and a switch was given to you where you could save the life of your mother somehow, but in return you would have to forfeit the life of a stranger you will never meet or come in contact with (or have come in contact with), would you do it? If so, you've already established a hierarchy of importance based on the sentimental value of a person (due to the fact that you're emotionally attached to them), negating the premise of total and absolute equality. Total and absolute equality would mean you are nothing but a statistic. Humans feel a strong sense of identity, whether that's built on nationalism, creed, race, etc. To take that away is to take human nature away. It does not have to be restricted to property per say.
>>581131864 But you still work FOR someone. So you can spit money on you, so you can buy him the goods you made yourself. It's no different from slavery. What is slavery ? It's people working for a master, though the master need them to work for him, so he "offers" them a roof and food. What is work under capitalism ? It's people working for a boss, though the boss need them to work for him, so he "offers" them money so they can get stuff to sustain their lives. Though, they learned from slavery, people were mad about their condition, so nowadays they let out the slack so people can be happy about their condition by creating more goods than they actually need and telling them since birth that owning is the highway to happiness. >Work under capitalism is the same as slavery but with people being happy about it though conditioning
>>581132485 marxism, like any other theory, is based on the observation on how events play themselves out. Das Kapital may not have been written by the time of the french revolution (or the century thereafter), but the same type of 'class separation' was already in place. The bourgeoisie was established as it could have ever been(the nobles are more than arguably part of it), meaning the strongest catalyst for change to a communist system had occured without avail. Thus, it will fail to materialize, if the trends of today are in ceteris paribus.
>>581132273 Mmmh you're right about that switch thing, gonna think about it. >Humans feel a strong sense of identity, whether that's built on nationalism, creed, race, etc. I don't agree on this though, all of the above is predetermined by the society you live in, living in the ideal utopian society I was describing means being free from this man-crafted conditions because tolerance. It's not human nature, it's conditioning.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.