Capitalism

> Capitalist society
> Corporations are bound to be formed
> Corporations want the economy to grow since it means bigger profits for them.
> They promote feminism because it leads to more people working, more people consuming and more people paying taxes.
> They promote LGBT for the same reason
> Birthrate declines, since most women are now working so they don’t have time for (many) children and because of LGBT relationships.
> Corporations don’t want a shrinking population because it means fewer people consuming their products
> Corporations now promote immigration, tolerance and anti-racism.
> Country goes to shit.

Why does Sup Forums love capitalism/free market so much, while it is the source of everything they hate?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FaCHBmGWcBc
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>They promote LGBT for the same reason
Gay people work whether they are married or not
>Corporations now promote immigration
Get rid of welfare and all of our immigration problems are gone. Get rid of the state and you won't have welfare.

> Corporations don’t want a shrinking population because it means fewer people consuming their products
You see, corporations don't give a damn about this step

feminism largely came about because the shortage of men during the great wars, so they were allowed to work in the factories.
when the men came back from the war some of the women stayed working or moved onto other roles like secretary, middle management, etc

Didn't most women have a job in Sowjetunion?

Also, all ex-communist countries have extremely low birthrates.

Weak bait.

When some people are bisexual or leaning towards being gay, in a traditional society they would just get married and have children, but when being gay becomes trendy, they will go for a LGBT relationship.
Why not?

I'm not defending communism.

I would suggest something along the lines of nat.soc.

What's stopping me from opening a business that bombs competitors in ancapastan?

Good redpill thanks op

Seems like most corporations don't have enough jobs for the population tho

>When some people are bisexual or leaning towards being gay, in a traditional society they would just get married and have children, but when being gay becomes trendy, they will go for a LGBT relationship.
Okay, so then corporations would be anti-LGBT, because it means more heterosexual relationships and thus more children to buy their products. Homosexual relationships don't make any kids that become consumers and workers.

Because they fell for the left-right meme and can't fathom being pro white without also giving money to the jew.

The NAP. You open that business, and every militia and small business under the sun is going to be looking to shut you down.

its not their responsibility to make jobs for everyone

But natsoc is a capitalistic system. Just look at IG Farben, Thyssen, Volkswagen, etc.

No it's better for the corporations if couples do NOT have children, so both partners are working and when the population starts shrinking, they just solve it via immigration. It's much more profitable for them even though it hurts the country.

I was born and lived as a youth under communism . It takes away your soul and the will to leave.

Capitalism is plutocracy which is also bad.

Free market tho is GOOD! It means everyone do the best you can to survive and anything you do is gonna reflect how rest of the world treats you. Is natural order .

Yes, but natsoc would censor feminism, LGBT, "tolerance",... in tv shows and movies.

>so both partners are working and when the population starts shrinking
They've already successful gotten us to have two people working with kids somehow, I'm sure that would be their ideal

>they just solve it via immigration
Except the immigrants either have to be productive and work, or starve, or leave. The only way they can circumvent this is through the welfare state, which can't happen if you don't give the state that kind of power.

Opensource for example is free market capitalism. You would think is socialism cooperativism but here is why Free Market is good. It combines the best elements of socialism with the best of capitalism.

>B But wit gapidalism id begome rich
>Wid gomunisms no

>Except the immigrants either have to be productive and work, or starve, or leave. The only way they can circumvent this is through the welfare state, which can't happen if you don't give the state that kind of power.

When immigrants arrive, they are going to need help learning the language, get an education,...
If the state does not give welfare, the corporations will influence the state, as it is necessary for their (the corporations) survival.

I'm not defending communism.

Sounds like we need a 3rd system
>free market w/ limits
>smash cultural marxism

youtube.com/watch?v=FaCHBmGWcBc

>If the state does not give welfare, the corporations will influence the state, as it is necessary for their (the corporations) survival.
Then let us get rid of the state. After all, the only way the corporations can possibly make taking in all those immigrants profitable is if they have the state rob us of our wealth at gunpoint, so let's take away any influence they might have by removing the state from our lives.

No, they promote those things because they know the political climate. Their marketers are statisticians more than anything, and they will do what they believe (right or wrong) will win them more customers. If they think virtue signaling will win them more than impartiality, they will go for it. If they thing mild signaling done in a way that makes it difficult to criticize without coming off as extreme yourself, they will do that. Moreover, leftists like doing it because they believe they are sticking it to the Man (you know, those who decided corporations are people).

I personally think it's a combination of both. First major corporations will start promoting it, then when it becomes the social norm, the rest will follow because they want to cater to the most popular beliefs, like you said.

In a capitalist society there would be little or no welfare, immigrants would come here purely to work like the laborers in Qatar right now or as part of a brain drain of worthy people from across the world.

Natural selection would take care of the birthrate problem, religious women who want families will raise the next generation who in turn will be religious and want families etcetera...

Our current corporations are basically adapting to current circumstance. They have to promote "diversity" and "tolerance" to avoid lawsuits. They want immigrant laborers but the welfare costs are paid indirectly so it doesn't figure into their calculations.

>I'm not defending communism.

me too. but however communism will be a better thing than capitalism

It would be better for social cohesion and it would produce less degeneracy, but I still think natsoc is the best ideology. It does the same thing AND you actually have decent products.

It isn't, though. They may take queues from government propaganda that they think was well received, as they had in the 40's and 50's, but they won't often be the ones to stick their necks out, especially not for marketing.

And increase corruption and crime and just make the world even shittier than it is now.

>blames capitalism
No idiot, the problem is democracy and womens suffrage.
You have allowed the state to fill the role of men and you're shocked with the frankenstein society you've created?
How is this capitalisms fault?

natsoc and communism arent that different

Reason why communism went bad and collapsed was because capitalism was against it

>Reason why communism went bad and collapsed was because capitalism was against it
Then it was a weak ideology. If your system is incapable of standing up to any resistance or subversion then it doesn't deserve to exist. Same goes with fascism, monarchism, and any other ideologies that claim the only reason they failed is because other people stopped them.

The same corporation that own food, clothing, tech,... are often involved in hollywood. They promote these idees via movies. They implement them in movies that are going to be popular anyway (e.g. Star Wars), so they aren't sticking their necks out.

I assume your talking about communism, if so, I agree.
If your talking about natsoc, crime is heavily fought by the gouvernement and since their is a decent amount of wealth and the product are of good quality, crime won't be a big issue.

Attempts to impose an ideal on society mostly fail, even a benevolent incorruptible dictator wouldn't be able to fully control their underlings and would be unable to completely achieve their vision.

Ultimately everything boils down to the individual and capitalism is the system best suited to individualists. They will take responsibility, they will have to embrace reality and they will change themselves more than any ideology could.

Women's suffrage is a result of feminism.

Democracy (or at least the illusion of it) is necessary to keep the people happy