Capitalism is wrong because 1) it still allows for discrimination - a priori judgements - to occur; 2) more money means more ways of making more money - economical intranational inequality, the major factor for the reduction of the quality of life in developed countries; 3) it empowers individualistic ideologies, which in the long term leads to nationalist rationale, overall distrust, and ultimately to the fall of social cohesion.
Making something legally available to someone doesn't mean making it financially accessible to everyone, or even to a majority of people. Worshipping the "invisible hand" is refusing to understand the materialistic nature of economy, and the difference between finiteness of resources and scarcity of resources.
Poor capitalists blame the invisible hand for the inconsistencies that should be seen as systematic, but are taken as honest mistakes, while rich capitalists praise the same invisible hand for creating opportunities for them to hoard even more money.
Capitalism will seem to work as long as people believe it is working. Technically, it has long failed, and is as real today as communism in China: it's a political facade to allow for political thinking to orbit its issues, but never to solve them, because they are not political in nature. They are exclusively economical, the invisible hand is nothing more than an elite construct to alienate the working class from ever questioning the ruling class's authority over their lives. Even when the shit hits the fan, the government and the businesses always tell people "We were trying to our best, but The Hand didn't let us do it, and you know what happens when you defy That Hand, right? So help us pay for that shit we just did, it's in our best interest. We wouldn't want to have an economic system where people are actually accountable for what they do, you know? Also, we're going to keep doing the shit that brought us this shitty situation, but now we're going throw more money at it"
The Invisible Hand
>it still allows for discrimination
opinion discarded.
Wow, I thought you'd take longer than that throwing a tantrum xP
Well it's easily debunkable within the first few words. You haven't established how discrimination is a bad thing. You simply assume the reader agrees with you. Thus your entire basis is simply a subjective opinion you even fail to address.
So yeah. Discarded.
>Still trying to discuss politics with pol
Just come here for the memes, my dude.
render unto caesar the things that are caesar's
A priori judgements are bad because they do not allow people to interact with other people, only with their mental construct of other people, created from a series of pre-made ideas, based on belief. It is bad in the sense that knowing something is good, not knowing it is worse, refusing to know it is the worst. A system that does not address the fact that every individual has their own identities and thoughts, but relies on advertising and propaganda to survive has to be working on de-educating, misinforming and plainly lying to its people, or it is about to fall.
>discrimination AKA. a priori judgements
>All a priori judgements are discriminatory
hold
this
L
>1) it still allows for discrimination -
Jesus, and this came from an European "intellectual".
>3) it empowers individualistic ideologies, which in the long term leads to nationalist rationale, overall distrust, and ultimately to the fall of social cohesion.
Ya fucked it. The Nation is the largest semi-coherent social unit we've ever seen. Social cohesion is only currently possible on a national level anyway.
>a series of pre-made ideas
You've just described every rational human's process of assessment and called it bad.
Shut up OP.
Capitalism is bad because it inevitably drifts towards wealth inequality because money, when handled by someone with even vague competence, begets more money (and you can always hire someone with competence to manage your money for you).
Wealth inequality is bad because it inevitably results in power inequality. Just look at the USA. The interests of the common man don't matter a single fucking bit; government is a Roman circus to keep the masses complacent while the real policies are worked out behind closed doors. Empirical studies have shown that wherever the interests of the rich and the rest collide the rich always get their way, that the class of "the rich" (however you want to define it) have as much as 50% more representation than the rest despite being a minuscule fraction of the population.
Capitalism --> wealth inequality --> neo-feudalism.
>"but how do you explain the enormous success of capitalist countries if that's the case"
Because up until pretty recently capitalism was always tempered with restraint (and where it wasn't, the situation I describe did unfold). The new push for neo-liberalism started in the '70s and it's pretty much undeniably been all downhill from there.
Free markets and representative democracy are great. Capitalism is merely okay, and that only when pursued with due caution.
Thank you for the compliment :)
There's no nation which hosts a single culture, a single belief-system, a single economic class. There is no nation in which everyone has the same opinion about any particular topic. Social cohesion is not having the same opinion, it is related to how well people accept differences. So yes, the nation is the largest semi-coherent social unit, but size is not efficiency, even less when the cost of uniting a nation is by alienation of a part of it. That has and will surely lead again to civil unrest and distrust.
Communities are the most efficient model for social cohesion, as there's no need for conceptual adaptations when you change the scale at which you operate.
2bh I think communism and subsequent starvation/purges are inevitable in the US. we'll have to lose our innocence to the tune of ~20 million dead before the utopian marxist memeing becomes unfashionable
Explain me how will you get rid of money in your communist utopia?
...
>discrimination is wrong
No it isn't.
>more ways to make money is bad
No it isn't.
>nationalism is the opposite of social cohesion
No it isn't.
OP is a fucking retard. Sage.
You know that that's the only thing AIs can do, and that's why they suck, right? If you think that's the only thing happening in your brain while you're assessing something... Well, you're not thinking xP
>You know that that's the only thing AIs can do, and that's why they suck, right?
Run that process on a quantum computer capable of how our brains compute sentience, and you'd see the same as humans. They suck because their processing power sucks.
Hey, friend, got some questions for you:
- You know what finiteness means?
- Do you *believe* Einstein was retarded?
- How much money does your mom let you spend on CS:GO each month?
You're acting like you got BTFO
Which is reasonable because you did. At least you're saying something sound now.
Tell me all about your MIT degree on AI xD Could you give me one your references to that "process"? I'd love to see them :D
Fuck yeah OP btfo
Well if you'd like to go that route, why don't you show me yours. You, after all, explained the root causes of AI and why they aren't as good as human reasoning.
I'll bite the bait anyway. My audience is not you.
I'll type a response to your bait OP in a moment.
...
>it allows for discrimination
Vague. If you're talking about deciding who to trade with and who to not trade with then sure. People have the freedom to do that no matter what it's just a question as to whether they're hung for choosing where they spend their money or labor.
I'm sure you're a fellow who agrees with the whole birthday cake debacle we had here in America. That's great. That also means you're not a communist like you think you are.
That was an example of authoritative bourgeois telling a worker what he can and cannot do with his labor efforts and accumulated resources.
>muh inequality
If you have a problem with people not getting what they need then do something. Lobby for the workers and the poor instead of waddling around eating hotpockets, typing away furiously on your Macbook air (I know you own Apple Products, Nat). You're just a regular old consumer and are funding the "mistreatment" of people by these "evil corporations".
>Individualism = social collapse
Even Stirner would call your bluff for this odd one Nat. Is it any better to form a hive than for each man to raise his axe of his own fruition?
>Muh scarcity
If a company wishes to sell something they are only wise to sell for affordable prices. This holds no water. Not even faulty anecdotal evidence from you as usual.
>Muh invisible hand and some weird anecdote about elitist aristocrats praising it
>Capitalism is terrible and we should use something else
Okay then what do YOU suggest? Are you an ideas man or a problems man?
Looks like your strawman needs a little less straw, and a little more man xD
I didn't not say nationalism was the opposite of social cohesion UNLESS you're saying accepting differences between individuals is opposed to nationalism. Which is wrong. But if you believe something that is wrong, I'm ok with it. There will be a special gulag for your kind ^^
The same applies for money hoarding: it is bad, because there's only one thing you can do with money: spending it. If you keep it hidden under your bed, it will weaken the state's trading capacity; if you "invest to get more of it", you spend it to make more of it so you can... invest more; if just spend it, well, it dissipates to the whole nation, effectively redistributing it. Within capitalism, there is no fair distribution, as the state and the big companies get more than their fair share of profit, leaving little to nothing to distribute.
And more importantly: discrimination is what allows you to bully everyone else without feeling guilty, so I understand what makes you so fond of it. But is is not ok, it is not a matter of perspective, it is not even rational. It is an emotional response to the unknown. If you would like to know more about what makes humans (slightly) more capable at surviving than animals, ask me stuff.
I've never understood you, furfag. What do you SERIOUSLY believe about any of the stuff you troll on about? A couple of the buddies you'd bring to the muh holocaust threads I could tell were serious. But you? What the fuck is even up with you?
You've been kicking the same dead horses for a long ass time. How did you garner THIS much autism?
>bully everyone else without feeling guilty
>It is an emotional response
You're a walking contradiction. Like all leftists.
This is very succinct, btw
You know there are other emotions, right? xDD You guys.. :'D
This kid's been posting this same trash for years now. Or man. I suppose he's a man because he collects welfare. No other explanation.
Look up what time it is in Portugal right now.
>individualistic ideologies, which in the long term leads to nationalist rationale
this makes zero sense
commies call each other comrade and shit, how is that not nationalist
>which in the long term leads to nationalist rationale, overall distrust, and ultimately to the fall of social cohesion.
I really don't know what you are referring to, I started lurking here in /pol only some days ago, never came here before. But you're all up for some preconceptions, right? And maybe they'll lead to misconceptions, just as you love not seeing they do? Perfect :) TTUL, amigos!
Nat you always have the same fucking posting style. You don't kid a single fucking person.
What is your master plan?
Why have you shitposted here like this for THIS long?
Comradeship refers to companionship beyond borders. It is based on social ideology, not on country of origin, skin colour, or religion. It is intersectional :D
That's bullshit and you know it. The Soviets told everyone that to euphemize their imperialism.
Communist, or rather fascist nations as they REALLY are, are always very territorial. Either that or very imperialistic.
And do you know why that will never change?
Yes, because the people that take over the revolution and become the government assume the bourgeois class from the old aristocrats and treat the worker like they've always been treated.
Ok, who dafuq is Nat? If I had a master plan it wouldn't be sharing my views on Crapitalism in a snakepit like /pol. I would like people to answer my posts
And also this guy's post :)
I kind of went off topic at the very end there, should have added "They get very very greedy similar to how the old aristocracy was"
>Crapitalism
>Snakepit
You never cease to entertain, Nationalist View !cocksuck3r
Well since you're no longer using it I may just have to use it myself.
Absolutely wrong. "Comrade" etymology goes back to "one who shares the same room" literally. You should know this as it is a romance language root...
A nation is a larger space than a "room", but figuratively it means one who shares the same space (usually nation). Only the Communist International wanted to call everyone Comrade because they wanted to export their revolution across national borders: that shit got slapped down by the Puds. In the battle of Warsaw you commie Porto faggot.
...