Why do you support capitalism?

Why do you support capitalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

counter-currents.com/2012/04/hitlers-social-revolution-part-2/
hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/
archive.is/gGu4e
nytimes.com/1984/08/28/business/soviet-union-is-facing-another-poor-harvest.html
nytimes.com/1982/01/15/world/soviet-food-shortages-grumbling-and-excuses.html?pagewanted=all
nytimes.com/1984/10/20/us/scientists-see-a-decline-in-russian-life-span.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
archive.is/J9reo
socialsciencespace.com/2013/11/robin-dunbar-on-dunbar-numbers/
archive.is/JsXlM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

lol

i dont

capitalism regulated under national socialism. Everyone is allowed to prosper under a society which cultivates innovation but monetary profit for the sake of undermining the nations people is not worthwhile in any sense.

I support capitalism, just not matirialism. I hate materialism. Of coarse some evils are nessesary (mostly in small doses), even your kind know that...

Because we don't have a system good enough to replace mixed market capitalism just yet. I predict that with automation on rise though, that a more socialist system will be necessary in the future (something like universal basic income being implemented). For now though there's nothing that motivates people to work quite like a pay check.

Cause I get to own nice stuff, I dont have to wait in line for rations, and nobody will murder me for having a college degree. Pretty comfy desu

If only we were still feudal

Because every other system is objectively worse.

Why do people act like the wealthy don't deserve their wealth? Like, they just one day woke up, stretched, had the morning piss, and decided to look at their bank account and found a billion dollars. Seriously, most wealthy people work damn hard to get to that position.

Because it's better than any of the alternatives. It's the only system that allows me to live my life the way that I want to without having to answer to anybody else.

National Socialism wasn't regulated though. It was economically libertarian - there were mass privatizations, income inequality increased, capital had free reign to do whatever they wanted.

One of the leading Nazis, Leon Degrelle, said this:

>Since Hitler, only Ronald Reagan has seemed to understand this. As President, he realized that to restore prosperity in the United States meant boldly stimulating the economy with credits and a drastic reduction in taxes, instead of waiting for the country to emerge from economic stagnation on its own.

counter-currents.com/2012/04/hitlers-social-revolution-part-2/

Basically he's saying Reagan and Hitler had identical economic ideologies - both supported deregulation, both smashed labor unions, and both empowered capital.

>tfw Capitalism dragged us out of feudalism.

The principle of capitalism where decisions are made to maximize some outcome is good. Maximizing profit itself is bad because things like driving down wages help with that.

What exactly drives a communist economy besides the whim of the state and the will of the people to not starve?

STOP CRITICIZING WEALTH EXTRACTORS, GOYIM

if capitalism was just feudalism, we'd call it feudalism

I don't. At least half of this board doesn't...

..well half of the board before the flood of newshits from the_donald during the election.

Capitalism and National Socialism/Fascism are incompatible with each other bro. We're all brought up to believe that Market-economics automatically means some form of Capitalism, but that really isn't the case. You can be pro-markets (like myself), but anti-capitalist.

>I support capitalism, just not matirialism. I hate materialism.

All capitalism degenerates into materialism. Always. When profit is the primary or sole motivation of business action, then the destruction of tradition, culture and history is inevitable. Every time a tradition is destroyed: it opens up a new market to be exploited, and the only people that actually benefit from that are the wealthy, at the expense of the average person who has to live with the consequences.

Support market-economics, don't support capitalism.

There is LITERALLY nothing wrong with medieval feudalism.

>Seriously, most wealthy people work damn hard to get to that position.
The world's wealthiest people inherited their wealth, like Lord Rothschild. He's never performed a day of honest labor in his life.

The cucked ideology you subscribe to is exactly what people like Lord Rothschild want you to think - so they can keep fleecing humanity indefinitely.

the feudal system is pretty efficient and resilient. A nobles wealth is his land and his people. He must protect his people and his land to maintain his wealth. The skilled people have a free market to sell thier trade (millers, smiths, coblers, masons. Ect). The dreggs of society have to produce crop or starve.

>if fish were called chickens we'd call them chickens
the leaf, everyone

I don't

Cry about it more faggot. Some people just get lucky that's how the world works

Because instead of peasants, they are comfy middle class people living a nice life. Under communism, everyone is the shoeless peasants.

Change the flag from "1%" to "State" and you've got communism.

Under capitalism those guys can become the job creators

GOD you fucking commies absolutely have to mischaracterize what you don't like in order to 'refute' it or whatever. You can't understand capitalism because you don't want to work for anything, you want free shit for existing.

>Most wealthy people
>Wealthiest people
hmm

>implying that the kingdom would last without administrators making alliances, directing trade, and keeping claimants from using their casus belli in ways that serfs don't have time to be educated in

Oh sure next time we'll just remove positions like the Mayor of the Palace so knowing administrators wouldn't be able to preserve Roman knowledge and culture to lead Europe forward via the Carolingian Empire, because they just didn't know shit.

...

so cuckafellers, roflschilds, dupeonts and few other honorable nobility of teh colonies can be justly adored. honest way is it not.

Most rich people never became rich through genuine innovation. In fact the majority of inventor and scientists stay middle class.

Usually, rich people are already born rich and well connected (look at Trump)

That or they climbed the ranks of an established corporation through work politics. Or in rare cases opened and business and marketed themselves better than the competition

Capitalism is not the most opitmal system for human progress. In fact it can lead to it's complete decadence. See where we are today.

Why do people think that's what feudalism was?

Feudalism is actually better than capitalism. The best parts of Europe for cultural accomplishments, anti-corruption, and general freedom are within the extent of Manorial Feudalism in the 800s. Manorial Feudalism's restrictions against cousin marriage, nepotism, etc made Europe better than it was before.

hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/
archive.is/gGu4e

What are you even trying to say?

Congrats on being a goodgoy cuck I guess?

you beat me to it, reveal your flag. i want to see where you shitpost from. reveal it now.

>they are comfy middle class people living a nice life.

I grew up dirt poor and I'm now an executive for a fortune 500 through hard work.
Communism would never afford me that possibility because communism has never created a fortune 500 company.
The poor in capitalist countries are better off than middle class in many communist states. The poor don't line up for bread in America.

Because communists killed my grandfather for wrongthink and capitalism allowed my father to make a small fortune just for having a creative idea for business..

That's Keynesian economics, not communism, and Ronald Reagan did not even do this. This was back when everyone was still scared about the oil crisis when we all know today it was just the arabs being cunts.

Disingenuous argument. Hitler's Germany was the least nationalized/mobilized nation of the major powers of World War II, but he was by no means an economic libertarian.

Hitler's policies, like Mussolini's, are generally described as "corporatist." This is not rule by corporations, but the sale of government services to private businesses that then do it as a profit. Corporatism to some degree is ubiquitous in modern countries. Public construction is almost always corporatism for example, the government takes bids from private companies then pays the winner to do the work.

Hitler routinely intervened in the economy using methods very similar to FDR's. Reducing unemployment was one of Hitler's top priorities and he put Germans to work on infrastructure, military production, and various other projects. Would you call the New Deal economically libertarian?

But you'll just screech at me for this post, because communism is le superior and all capitalism is crypto-fascism, am I right comrade?

Communism is just neo-feudalism.

Nazis had socialist regulated state capitalism.

And the capitalist part is what led to their downfall as they were too reluctant to seize all the means of production when the war started. The communists were not and overwhelmed them.

feudalism =/= capitalism

dont u understand how words work, hell do you even know anything?

But the state isn't 1% - under socialism, the state is 100%, because 100% of people participate in a centrally planned economy

For fucks sake try and learn the difference between Manorialism and Capitalism before making an ass of yourself.

>feudalism was bad because people used to be poor
>modern """""understanding""""" of economics

It worked best as a small scale system. One lord over 200, 300 citizens max. Too many and he/she wouldnt be able to care for them all. Problem is, most US communities are 1000s to 10000s, esp in urban or suburban areas. Its too close, not self sustaining enough. Good idea though.

Except for the fact that 80% of the population produced everyone's food but lived in huts and ate rough bread and watery soup.

BETTER DEAD THAN RED

I feel like we have some rather similar views here. I'm an ardent capitalist but I do also try to resist too many materialistic urges. People have every right to be materialistic, but I feel it is foolish unless that is the only thing that makes you happy. It very well could be, especially for people that will never find love. 2D animu waifus can fill a void for a person and I don't want to deny that, but it won't for me.
I think the problem with materialism comes in when people who cannot afford those materialistic things buy them. Nothing wrong with Bill Gates buying tons of stuff, but the person deep in debt who just has to have the new +$700 iphone really shouldn't.

Gonna need some sources on that one. Or is that just your opinion your typing?

The moment the state makes a decision that someone doesn't approve it stops being 100% of people.

...

Because it works?

LOL
O
L
>100% of the people participate in politics
LOL
O
L

There’s a different between being unbelievably wealthy and becoming rich.

My family was poor as fuck and now my wife and I literally have zero debt, all student loans paid off and are saving 3-4K a month. Literally ZERO debt and we own our own home.

We didn’t have children before we were married, we drove shitty cars and paid cash for everything besides our original mortgage we had on the house.

This self defeatist bullshit mentality you have can walk right into the gas chamber along with yourself.

kys cuck

Under national socialism I believe corporations were only allowed to keep 50% of their profits, so this is just wrong. This is surely better than the system we have now. However its not possible to bring back. The world is too interconnected so corporations need to be brought to heel in a different way.

You are an assclown for believing this. The concept of nations is not some important cultural imperative. It's a layer of protection for rich scumbags, nothing more, and your masters are really pussyflustered that this knowledge is now widespread. Stop believing the world will return to nation shit. The opposite will happen.

Even if they don't approve of the centrally planned economy, they still participate in it. Unless they refuse to work - in which case they get a luxurious lifetime vacation in Siberia.

OP and communism BTFO

Whose castle is that under communism?

Most Marxist Leninist states abolished feudalism. Look at Albania, China, and Eastern Europe.

This is just incomprehensible leafism right here.

The 1% don't support capitalism either.

Privatise gains, socialise losses, bail the fuck out of it if there is a crash, protect your own jobs from shitskins, ie law, finance, open borders for almost everyone else.

Unbelievable that the left still pat themselves on the back for bailing out the 1% during the gfc. God they're scum.

i dont

>because 100% of people participate in a centrally planned economy

Which is a fucking terrible idea because centrally planned economies don't have any checks or balances to prevent mismanagement, while capitalist countries punish mismanagement via the mechanism of competition.

Case in point, during a scarce wheat season, Soviets didn't have enough mechanics available to maintain or repair combines so wheat just rotted in the field and they were forced to buy grain from America. This was 1984. The wheat shortage continued because the next year the Politburo STILL didn't get enough mechanics deployed, and there is no process or procedure to fix the management layer that caused this failure to occur and nothing to stop it from recurrence. Anyone who's ever had a management role in public or private sector knows this just by looking at the problem, so I'm guessing you're a teenager that hasn't ever worked in a position of responsibility.
nytimes.com/1984/08/28/business/soviet-union-is-facing-another-poor-harvest.html

nytimes.com/1982/01/15/world/soviet-food-shortages-grumbling-and-excuses.html?pagewanted=all


nytimes.com/1984/10/20/us/scientists-see-a-decline-in-russian-life-span.html

>Basically he's saying Reagan and Hitler had identical economic ideologies

Not even close. Just because a bear and a wolf both have fur and sharp teeth doesn't mean they are the same. There are some fundamental and completely irreconcilable differences between the two ideologies.

The Third Reich was a market-oriented economy, but still fundamentally Nationalist and Socialist. The top personal tax rate was very low (13.7%), but the corporate tax rate was over 40%. The economy was internally-focused, as any economic activity that could be done within the country was done so (a form of Limited Autarky). They traded with outsiders as little as they could (they needed Iron Ore from Sweden and Oil from Romania, since the domestic mining operations were insufficient), but did not trade internationally where it could be avoided.
The National Socialist Program specifically stated that if there was a job shortage: foreigners would be ejected from the country, with Germans coming first in the area of job selection.

Compare that to Reagan:

Gutted the corporate tax rate, while simultaneously gutting welfare programs, so that the only people that were actually better off in the end were the wealthiest elements of society.

Was the core person responsible for the neoliberal economic wave to encompass the west that lead to a total destruction of US industry so it could be shipped overseas to be worked by cheaper labour.

Pardoned millions of illegal immigrants and thus indirectly deflated the cost of labour and caused artificial job shortages, driving the cost of labour down, amongst causing a massive demographic shift in the country that has lead to a near collapse of historical American identity

The two were day and night.

Because I work hard for what I earn.

The Politburo's.

Capitalism is fine. The real evil Commies like to bitch about, but never name, is greed. Attacking the channel through which the sin moves does little to stop the sin itself as it will often just find a new way to plague mankind. This form often being Communism which allows greed to do significantly more damage than it did before.

The brutal dictator's who inevitably seizes control from the "true communists".

This guy gets it.

You make your own way in life. Get busy living your dream or be recruited to make someone else's happen.

The thing is that even larger areas usually function with cells of about 150 people. The Dunbar number as it is know is reflected in nomadic tribes, rural villages, urban neighborhoods, military companies, and social media. It can absolutely interact with a larger populace, but that core is important.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
archive.is/J9reo

socialsciencespace.com/2013/11/robin-dunbar-on-dunbar-numbers/
archive.is/JsXlM

Nomenklatura

How about if the local farmer decides to grow potatoes instead of carrots like the state says?
How about if shop keeper wants to sell shoes for $2 instead of $1?
They aren't refusing to work in this case.

The beurocrats that govern every aspect of your life

>I'm now an executive for a fortune 500 through hard work.
LARP harder faggot. If you were a CEO you'd be doing blow and fucking escorts right now, not wasting your time on a forum for neets and autists

>centrally planned systems don't work
What is a corporation?

Centrally planned systems DO work, in fact they're probably the only thing that works, and communism worked in the USSR just not in the way that Marx predicted.

>muh fascist belief system is just as valid

m8 it isn't, you believe lies. The economic left has utter argumentative (and moral) superiority. A lack of social policy makes an economy unstable, not stronger.

Commies think of the state as an entity of its own. Where do you think you are transferring the power to Ivan? By getting rid of the big bad bourgeoisie, you are effectively creating an unstoppable all controlling overruling class that controls all means of production and has full discretion on how to use there power without any need of input from the people or a bureaucracy. Communism/Socialism, whatever you want to call it. Doesn't take into account, the most basic psychology and sociology of Humans. Humans fucking suck. You give all the power to a small group of people, guess what, there just gonna take it and shit all over you.

just look up the great inventors and scientists of the 20th century. They weren't particularly wealthy. Some of the greatest even died in poverty (Tesla) and the hacks (like Edisson) made it to the top.

Capitalism is good if you're business savy and essentially focus all your efforts on accumulating wealth. Those that seek something higher, either spiritual or knowledge or both are not directly rewarded.

But do explain why Jews make up 90% of the 1%'s wealthiest in your ideal system. Answer that question first. Don't reply if you can't.

>calling someone a good goy
>MARX IMAGE WORSHIP

lol xd

Like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, I could go on and on. There are actually surprisingly few people in the top 100 wealthiest people who inherited the majority of their wealth and really not that many who had a huge leg up, like Trump (small loan, lel).

You have a Canadian flag, you realize that right?

you can never change things about how the world works

like wolves eat people who are outside sometimes if you don't get eaten you're lucky so count your blessings, that's how the world works

> If you were a CEO you'd be doing blow and fucking escorts right now, not wasting your time on a forum for neets and autists

I'm a director. Not all executives are C suite. I'm thrilled that your idea of who and what executives are is based on movies and TV because you've never been one or even met one.

Better than being controlled by Donald "McD's for lunch" Trump.

Those numbers are way off. It's more like 20-35% and probably a function of intelligence. Still way overrepresented but they're overrepresented in chess and nobel prizes too and chess doesn't pay a huge amount of money.

My sister knew a girl who once dated communism, and she said it had a smelly little penis that couldn't get hard for her

What's funny about that is why it happens. A "true communist" (usually Trotskyite) has a better understanding of dialectical conflict than the more practical dictator who usually liquidates them. The issue is that properly applied Hegelian Dialectics would require a permanent revolution, which is contrary to the interests of the now victorious revolutionaries.

>right into the gas chamber
Funny considering those were run by National Socialists.

But wait, I thought the holocaust never happened?

Ya but I'm not an incomprehensible leaf

>Centrally planned systems DO work, in fact they're probably the only thing that works, and communism worked in the USSR just not in the way that Marx predicted.

They don't if there is no competition to capitalize on their stagnation or inefficiencies. Companies get devoured by competition all the time because of their internal systemic failures to produce effectively. This is why monopolies are bad. How old are you? This is common knowledge to adults.

Capitalism doesn't exist, it's just what retarded communists call everything that isn't their fantasy version of society.

Marx was a passionate antisemite, as was Lenin. Jewish heritage doesn't make you a Jew, only a nazi assclown would believe otherwise.

forgot pic related

Wiping my ass with Komsomolskaya Pravda was harsh and painful so I prefer toilet paper.

>The economic left has utter argumentative (and moral) superiority.

Sure thing, Schlomo.

>walked right into debt trap
>benefited from all Socialist debt reliefs on the books
>doesn't thank Obama on his knees

I've found GOP's intellectual and economic core are ungrateful sociopaths.