How can you claim to be redpilled and support capitalism?

This might seem like a shitpost or I'm trying to bait people, but I legitimately want to understand:

>How can you claim to be redpilled (or it's equivalent) and support capitalism?

Virtually everyone on this board (including myself) is pro-markets, but only an ideologue could think that they can't be abused. Capitalism utilizes markets in a fashion that is inherently degenerating in nature. If you proceed into every transaction with the belief that the primary or sole purpose of the transaction is the accumulation of wealth and profits (the core principal of what Capitalism actually is), how does that lead to anything but social decay, degeneracy and profligacy?

How do you pro-capitalists reconcile being anti-degenerate and pro-capitalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-11/how-economics-failed-economy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Not only that, capitalists support open borders, (((free trade))) agreements that outsource jobs and putting material gain over national and spiritual interests.

how does the accumulation of wealth lead to degeneration?

that's false, only free flow of goods, not necesarily of people, whoever tells you otherwise is a jewish shill

That's not how it's worked out. More immigration means a cheaper unskilled labor market. It's basically anti-national scabbery.

you don't have to be redpilled to support capitalism. You merely need to not be braindead.

you don't need people to come to you when you can bring the jobs there

Than that's just outsourcing. Companies that do that sort of thing need to be nationalized.

The accumulation of wealth itself is irrelevant, the act and way in which that wealth is accumulated is the problem.

When Capitalism at any given moment maxed out in a certain area, those who have their money aren't going to just do nothing. They will want to make more money (hence the problem I stated). In most cases this is achieved by doing something that is inherently damaing to the society that hosts it. The capitalists and wealthy interests have few options

a: ship industry overseas where the labor is cheaper, thus causing economic problems for those at home
b: focus money and effort into destroying the culture or traditions within the country, which in turn opens up new markets to be exploited (pornography, sex toys, etc.). The only people that benefit from the destruction of tradition are the people that can exploit the new markets created in the vacuum they leave.

or c: import scum from the third world to turn into additional debt-consumerist slaves.

capitalism is a necessary evil.

There is a third way.

Capitalism destroys culture as much as Marxism destroys economies and peoples.

I say there should be another way, and that is not impossible to do.

It’s super simple.

My number one political ideology is small government. I don’t care about anything else. With a small government, I keep more of my own paycheck that I earned. It is the only way to keep what you earn. Communism, Socialism and Fascism are all different forms of big expensive government. Expensive big government means I bring Home less $$. Period.

>heritage makes no profit
Stop sucking Adolf's cock and see the beauty of a Randian Ancap society

>I keep more of my own paycheck that I earned. It is the only way to keep what you earn. Communism, Socialism and Fascism are all different forms of big expensive government. Expensive big government means I bring Home less $$.

Perhaps, perhaps not. We know that the individual income tax rate in National Socialist Germany (the big gubberment socialist state) was only 13.7%. Now admittedly this was achieved through deficit spending on the part of the government, but even if that tax rate was increased to 20%, that's still in another world entirely from the so-called capitalist west.

>(((Ayn Rand)))

>pro-markets
Shitpost harder faggot

>, but only an ideologue could think that they can't be abused.
>he thinks that giving up all powers to teh state can't be abused more

>drawing unwarranted conclusions and putting words into my mouth

Nowhere do I say that I am anti-market or believe that "giving up all powers to teh state" is a good thing.

Try again though.

If you allow voluntary market transactions and equal personal freedoms then this is a form of capitalism. You can't ban capitalism without becoming communist.

Nationalistic Capitalism = National Socialism
Seems like a good idea

Capitalists explain something to me.

Lets enter a scenario.

You have 10 people and 100 acres of land.

Do not assume anything else.

1 person in this group of 10 people claims all 100 acres of land as his own.

He then drags a bunch of sticks around the perimeter of the 100 acres.

He then offer the 9 other people access to his land, in exchange for 90% of the produce they make.

Is it exploitative?

Sounds like soviet communism. Communists, explain why are you so exploitative?

That's a strawman argument in that the scenario you're describing is completely hypothetical.

>completely hypothetical.
Soviet (((collectivization))) was not hypothetical thing at all.

>Nationalism
>Capitalism
pick one

Because capitalism is objectively the best economic system retard.

>Capitalism utilizes
Capitalism is not a person.
Capitalism does not act.
Capitalism does not think.
Capitalism is a word to describe any system of decentralized ownership and exchange of capital. Free-market capitalism entails voluntary exchange/ownership. Crony capitalism entails non-voluntary exchanges and ownership (taxation, subsidies, etc.).
Just so we're clear.

>in a fashion that is inherently degenerating in nature
If we're talking about free markets, that isn't quite the case. All humans act with the information they have to accomplish goals. Few people have the goal of self-destruction, so few people would engage in exchanges they know to be harmful.

The contemporary (((state))) undermines this in two ways: (1) they work to maintain a monopoly on information (i.e. public schooling and the FCC) and (2) they steal money, through taxation, to subsidize firms that sell degenerate products (e.g. soft drinks, sports stadiums, and beer).

This system succeeds in controlling slaves much better than communism, because communist leaders are more overt about about their monopoly on information and force, as well as their redistribution of capital. An uprising is bound to happen when the people become desperate in a communist system, because the enemy is obvious. This is not so in a Keynesian system. The slaves are fed nonsense like "taxes are the price we pay for civilization" and "every vote counts" in the monopolized schooling system, so when they degenerate into material and psychological poverty, they cannot begin to comprehend who their enemy is. They even become angry when they hear the truth, shouting out buzzwords like "unpatriotic", "conspiracy theorist", and "anti-semite".

If you get the state's guns out of the markets, these problems disappear. Without a monopoly on information, the (((enemy))) would become obvious. Without theft-funded subsidies, companies like Hershey's and the NFL would not be the sprawling empires they are now.

Hypothetical nonsense with no basis, such things never happen and are thus irrelevant. The only time someone has power over another person is when they hold the monopoly of violence over them, and 1 person cannot do this against the other 9 without some extraordinary advantage in technology.

>If you allow voluntary market transactions and equal personal freedoms then this is a form of capitalism. You can't ban capitalism without becoming communist.

Nonsense. If the primary or sole motivator of a business transaction or something similar isn't the accumulation of profits, then it can't be capitalism.

Markets existed before capitalism and in non-capitalist systems, so you're factually incorrect.

No shit. I'm referring to the fact that he's setting up a scenario where only 10 people and only 100 acres of land exist on earth. It's not realistic so his argument is nothing more than a meaningless hypothetical.

The State Exploited the Worker in the Soviet Union.

The workers surplus went to the state.

In Capitalism the workers Surplus goes to the bourgeoisie.

The price system is inherently exploitative. This is where alternatives to capitalism have failed.

They have merely switched the master for the slaves. In some cases, they just renamed the master.

Reject the false dichotomy
Choose nationalistic capitalism
>government allows free markets
>smacks firms that act against national interests

>Capitalism supposedly is built on scarcity.
>Create a hypothetical with scarce resources, and scarce labor.
>T.tt.this isn't a r.r.r.r.eal argument.

>government allows free markets
>smacks firms that act against national interests
Except the words "national interest" dont necessarily combine with nationalism when capitalism is involved, also free markets will strain against the closed borders nature of nationalism and try to find a way to subvert it

I'm interested in actual statistics. I hate capitalism as much as the next guy but your shitty scenario doesn't set up realistic scenarios in terms of actual pragmatism. Post some statistics instead of disproportional scenarios. Also what you were referring to is feudalism, not capitalism.

Do you understand that system able to ban voluntary market transactions needs to be omnipotent? How will you stop exploitation of everyone by such system?

>If you proceed into every transaction with the belief that the primary or sole purpose of the transaction is the accumulation of wealth and profits
Few people, if any, are truly in love with money. I do not know about you, but I enter into exchanges primarily for food, water, clothing, and shelter. All other goals (entertainment, information, etc.) are secondary. Any money I save in satisfying these ends is so that I may continue to comfortably satisfy them in the future, for both myself and for my family. Establishment economists do not want me to save like this (see pic related), so they continue to inflate the money supply, devaluing my wealth every day, and increase taxes, directly robbing me.

>how does that lead to anything but social decay, degeneracy and profligacy?
Perhaps if you're the one-in-a-million living cartoon character that bathes in gold coins, you have a point. Most people are not irrationally in love with money, however. Most people have simply been duped by the state in public schools and by state-funded corporations like CNN and Google, and they have had their markets artificially shaped by subsidy/taxation, all so that they degenerate themselves while the "elected" (((leaders))) benefit at their expense.

I must then reverse the charges. How do you (national socialists, democratic socialists, nazbols, syndicalists, communists, fascists, etc.) reconcile being anti-degenerate and pro-state?

Capitalism is dead. Old style capitalism used to be the way to go because it gave citizens power to control the way the country worked. But It requires an educated public and something that unifies the masses morally, ie race or religion. Now a days capitalism has morphed to corporatism with open borders and mass immigration for nothing more than profit. No national or idealistic pride, no common community, just a bunch of consumers. Bring on the benevolent monarchical fascist state, and kill these commie faggots.

Not a commie faggot, but the path that corporations buying out their competitors until there are very few mega-conglomerates left is unsettling.

How do you suppose we regulate voluntary transactions to have a better outcome that "profit" aka: win win negotiations?

Better answer will include:
1. More efficient at determining fair value for all individuals in any instance.
2. Does not rely on violence or coercion to benefit the greater good.

Come up with something better than capitalism (you can't) and I will be that.

Ps: America is not capitalist, Singapore is not capitalist, Bermuda is not capitalist...

...

Lol. "Maxed out"
>defeated meme flag

Read some Friedman.

Unfortunately, the assurance people derive from this belief that the power which is exercised over economic life is a power over matters of secondary importance only, and which makes them take lightly the threat to the freedom of our economic pursuits, is altogether unwarranted. It is largely a consequence of the erroneous belief that there are purely economic ends separate from the other ends of life. Yet, apart from the pathological case of the miser, there is no such thing. The ultimate ends of the activities of reasonable beings are never economic. Strictly speaking, there is no “economic motive” but only economic factors conditioning our striving for other ends. What in ordinary language is misleadingly called the “economic motive” means merely the desire for general opportunity, the desire for power to achieve unspecified ends.3 If we strive for money, it is because it offers us the widest choice in enjoying the fruits of our efforts. Because in modern society it is through the limitation of our money incomes that we are made to feel the restrictions which our relative poverty still imposes upon us, many have come to hate money as the symbol of these restrictions. But this is to mistake for the cause the medium through which a force makes itself felt. It would be much truer to say that money is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented by man. It is money which in existing society opens an astounding range of choice to the poor man—a range greater than that which not many generations ago was open to the wealthy.

Property rights are based on use. If you steal a claim, there must be some work put into the land. People can claim their own labor and not give a fuck about the guy's sticks. Land rights=land use.

We shall better understand the significance of this service of money if we consider what it would really mean if, as so many socialists characteristically propose, the “pecuniary motive” were largely displaced by “noneconomic incentives.” If all rewards, instead of being offered in money, were offered in the form of public distinctions or privileges, positions of power over other men, or better housing or better food, opportunities for travel or education, this would merely mean that the recipient would no longer be allowed to choose and that whoever fixed the reward determined not only its size but also the particular form in which it should be enjoyed.
Once we realize that there is no separate economic motive and that an economic gain or economic loss is merely a gain or a loss where it is still in our power to decide which of our needs or desires shall be affected, it is also easier to see the important kernel of truth in the general belief that economic matters affect only the less important ends of life and to understand the contempt in which “merely” economic considerations are often held. In a sense this is quite justified in a market economy—but only in such a free economy. So long as we can freely dispose over our income and all our possessions, economic loss will always deprive us only of what we regard as the least important of the desires we were able to satisfy. A “merely” economic loss is thus one whose effect we can still make fall on our less important needs, while when we say that the value of something we have lost is much greater than its economic value, or that it cannot even be estimated in economic terms, this means that we must bear the loss where it falls And similarly with an economic gain. Economic changes, in other words, usually affect only the fringe, the “margin,” of our needs.

There are many things which are more important than anything which economic gains or losses are likely to affect, which for us stand high above the amenities and even above many of the necessities of life which are affected by the economic ups and downs. Compared with them, the “filthy lucre,” the question whether we are economically somewhat worse or better off, seems of little importance. This makes many people believe that anything which, like economic planning, affects only our economic interests cannot seriously interfere with the more basic values of life.
This, however, is an erroneous conclusion. Economic values are less important to us than many things precisely because in economic matters we are free to decide what to us is more, and what less, important. Or, as we might say, because in the present society it is we who have to solve the economic problems of our lives. To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be always controlled unless we declare our specific purpose. Or, since when we declare our specific purpose we shall also have to get it approved, we should really be controlled in everything. The authority directing all economic activity would control not merely the part of our lives which is concerned with inferior things; it would control the allocation of the limited means for all our ends. And whoever controls all economic activity controls the means for all our ends and must therefore decide which are to be satisfied and which not. This is really the crux of the matter. Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends. And whoever has sole control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower—in short, what men should believe and strive for.

I'll take the bait.

You are correct in the statement that the purpose of capitalism is the accumulation of capital. This is done through investing some form of capital, and getting returns on your investment in a form of capital that leads to net profit of capital for you. You invest time and money into an endeavor to yield a net excess of spare time/money in the end. This is a classic risk/reward system, allowing individuals to independently select their level of risk correlated with the appropriate reward. "muh degeneracy" occurs when a traditionalist society breaks down, not when people aren't forced to wait in line for fucking bread. Capitalism allows an individual to freely work at the rate that they want, trading their capital for other capital (remember, capital comes in many form, money, resources, and most importantly, time) in an effort to end up in a state where they don't NEED to work any longer and can finally rest. This spurs production, innovation, and progression into future technologies. However, we must temper this with ensuring that particular "political capital" is not accumulated to the point to allow government enforced monopolies, as this leads to a situation where markets for a particular good or service exponentially become worse. I liked Teddy Roosevelt's approach to trust busting, tbqh.

Capitalism has nothing to do with degeneracy. If you have a country where the Jews control the media and academia you'll end up with degenerate behaviour. If you have a capitalist country with strong morals then you won't have degenerate behaviour everywhere

I believe free markets naturally weed out degeneracy. It's undoubtable that America is the least degenerate country in the world, even with all our problems there is no other country of comparable capability, size, or scale that is less degenerate than us in terms of overall culture.

Strong family units are rewarded economically. Less drug use and incarceration rates produce people who are more likely to be financially successful. There is an incentive to not be a filthy degenerate, contrary to what Sup Forums believes most hard-working rich people did not get there by being scum.

something like socialism neither rewards nor punishes degeneracy by not using profits and losses, which are more powerful incentives than pretty much anything else

>reddit spacing
what are you doing bro

>I believe free markets naturally weed out degeneracy. It's undoubtable that America is the least degenerate country in the world, even with all our problems there is no other country of comparable capability, size, or scale that is less degenerate than us in terms of overall culture.
how delusional are you?

Capitalism built our modern world but it's decaying, things like the New Deal regulations put a bulwark against crony capitalism but that was merely a delay. So what is the alternative?
More and more labor is to be automated and we can either do a system of universal basic income derived at least in part from social dividends from socialized automated means of production combined with population control if we can't colonize outside Earth. We can also choose to not automate for the sake of avoiding dangerous ramificaitons of the former. Socialism is not wealth redistribution but redistribution of ownership of the means of production. For example everyone in a company owns equal stock in said company and they are not paid wages but by a share of the profit, all revenue that is not overhead is profit and there wil more of it as there are no wages as that is replaced by profit sharing taken to an extreme.
The system nowadays is complicated as businesses need to pay a minimum wage at the very least even if their revenue doesn't match it so they have to resort to getting loan after loan to stay afloat and it keep them in perpetual debt slavery. It inhibits job growth and stagnates wages as they naturally try to avoid this as much as possible hence practices like sticking to minimum wage or outsourcing or hiring immigrants or automation. Business success relies on people having enough money to spend, it is the source of economic growth. Under the Socialist model, people should be paid more than they would under wages and if they get cut out of the job it'll be because the business failed to appeal enough to consumers instead of problems resulting from muh debts and cutting corners.

>Ps: America is not capitalist, Singapore is not capitalist, Bermuda is not capitalist...

Right so capitalism has never been tried but it's always worked. We just gotta deregulate those (((banks))) a bit more and let them move money around a bit better that will fix everything, amiright?

zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-11/how-economics-failed-economy