Capitalism logically and necesarilly ALWAYS leads to liberalism and degeneracy...

Capitalism logically and necesarilly ALWAYS leads to liberalism and degeneracy. It's necessitated by the logic of capitalism itself, it must grow and expand no matter what. Becoming isolationist, discriminatory, or conservative is terrible for profits and growth. Name one advanced capitalist society that hasn't degenerated, or isn't on its way to degenerating, into liberalism.
Prove me wrong. Top tip: you can't.

Inb4 "we don't have capitalism because we don't have the super perfect snowflake abstraction theorized by libertarians!". No shit retard, because your idea of capitalism cannot and will not ever exist in reality. It will always degenerate like it has everytime. You're no better than commies saying 'muh not real communism' about the ussr.

>degenerating
I keep seeing this word, but it seems to just mean "things that trigger me". Can I get a clear definition of it?

>friedman
>libertarian

?????

Oh wow Jews that no one has heard of or are hated by the public. I'm sure that couldn't possibly be (((by design)))

Well let's face it, the endpoint of this "libertarianism" is just a Pinochet-style free-market police state. There's no other option when you put propterty rights above all else.

I literally have no idea what you're getting at.

The destruction of old values and social norms.

So you're pretty clearly assuming that old values are better? Why?

Pinochetism isn't an end state. It's a method of getting more capitalism to benefit certain elites. Pinochetism lasted a few decades and created the groundwork, once it wasn't needed, it got discarded.

The Jews hate the small handful of Jews that are Libertarians or Austrian Economists because their ideology levels the playing field.

Becsuse they lead to higher social trust, meaning among the populace, and ensure the passing of society from one generation to another. You need to fuck off and do some reading new fag. Start with a summary of bowling alone.

There's the end of the cold war in there. Even though what you talk about is a pattern (e.g. SKorea), a political shift away from authoritarianism isn't the same as it being the intended outcome of the system.

If they had intended the maintenence of libertarian organization to be their primary aim, they wouldn't start allowing people to vote for gimmees.

Ah, so these are the "good ones", or should I say, """the good ones""".

>they lead to higher social trust, meaning among the populace, and ensure the passing of society from one generation to another
There's some nonsense here. You can't flip your shit when people change things the complain that it's "eroded trust". That's your reaction and it's on you. But there's the other half where people ARE lacking clear ethics and norms and are having difficulty trusting each other and cooperating.

But to me, that's an argument for having ethics and norms, not having TRADITIONAL ethics and norms. I think if people on the right were more flexible and open, we could find some consensus on common values and stabilize society. But if it's just "no no no, my dad beat me and he said this is wrong so no no no no no" (let's face it that's what a lot of it is), then you're just part of the problem.

As far as "meaning", a lot of the changes that happened in the 60s were explicitly because people didn't find the traditional strictures adequate for creating meaning in their lives.

As far as the passing of society from one generation thing, I'm assuming this is some sort of gripe against gay marriage or something?

>There's some nonsense here. You can't flip your shit when people change things the complain that it's "eroded trust". That's your reaction and it's on you. But there's the other half where people ARE lacking clear ethics and norms and are having difficulty trusting each other and cooperating.
Fuck off faggot, I'm not reading a single thing you've said. You don't know anything and haven't even read a single book or article on this subject. See pic related? You're in mount stupid.
Kill yourself.

Wow, this is a textbook case of being triggered. Sorry if I hit too close to home? It's Sup Forums, grow a pair you hugbox-dwelling degenerate.

Nothing has been more damaging to social trust then class and nationalism.

I don't suffer retards. Don't talk if you don't have an elementary understanding of the subject.
Bullshit. Nationalism brings people together. People naturally understand social distinctions will arise. The problem with the current system is that it plays down class in favour of the illusion atomistic indivualism. There is nothing wrong with class division, it's a natural outcome of mixed human ability. And I mean class here in a general sense, not the Marxian defintion.

I understand the subject better than you. I'm sympathetic but not driven by emotion. That's the difference, and why you are making things worse.

>tfw jews are the intellectuals in every political ideology
Everything is a jewish trick to OP

>There's some nonsense here. You can't flip your shit when people change things the complain that it's "eroded trust".

But that's exactly what "diversity", the prime architect of degenerative social change, does.

Like OP says, in the study abstractly titled "Bowling Alone", found that the more diverse a community is (measured by ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic diversity): the worse the social health indicators are.

Said social health indicators are Willingness to participate/vote in elections, willingness to donate to charity, willingness to work on community projects, willingness to volunteer and how much people trust their neighbors. There is a direct line between how diverse a community is and the drop in relative social health indicators.

>if people on the right were more flexible and open, we could find some consensus on common values and stabilize society.

People on the right are universally more order-driven. They consistently stay with what works instead of some fantasy vision of the future. The destabilization occurs when people high in trait openness (creative thinking; these people are almost always found on the political left) think that they know better than the people that are most responsible for the stable function of society are wrong because of some perceived oppression and ignored entirely. The two groups must interact with each other and compromise, that's how society continues to function without stagnation.

>a lot of the changes that happened in the 60s were explicitly because people didn't find the traditional strictures adequate for creating meaning in their lives.

Suicide rates at all time highs, happiness with people's lives at an all time low, satisfaction at an all time low. People are more miserable than ever before and it's been on a specific downwards trend since the 1970's, when the post-modern progressive agenda emerged and the neoliberal capitalist agenda began to overtake the post-war consensus.

>then class
>then

>worse the social health indicators are
There's a lot of correlations you're implying are causative. Foreigners tend to be poor and to move into poor areas. And the reaction of people like you, i.e. to freak out and be hateful, just makes things worse. I agree diversity creates the need for an active discussion on values and norms, but that should be happening anyway. The fact that some community shirk this responsibility and run on inertia isn't really a good thing, even though it makes things easier.

>think that they know better than the people that are most responsible for the stable function of society
We agree that everyone is responsible for the stable function of society, that everyone needs to consider how to make it work, talk about it and cooperate. But your flag suggests you're just like the people you hate, you want to shove your own values down people's throats and don't care how they feel or think about it. Instead of admitting this isn't a viable option, you retreat into authoritarian fantasies. Judging by your flag.

>downwards trend since the 1970's, when the post-modern progressive agenda
Yeah bro, kind of ignoring Reaganomics and the economic assrape of the working class there. These things go together, you impoverish people and they adopt a poverty culture of drugs, ignorance and true degeneracy, things that actually damage and kill themselves and their kids.

But ignoring the fact that this is a change that was largely wrought BY the conservative "people that are most responsible for the stable function of society" elites you admire is an intellectual necessity for you.

It's nice that you admire the postwar consensus, but do you really think that the postmodern progressive stuff was so hostile to it? Compared to Goldwaterism? Or that "neoliberalism" wasn't a way for center-left sell-outs to keep themselves in the game after the Reagan Revolution? Remember Tipper Gore going after Jello Biafra?

Have you read any academic books? Unless it's something scientific you don't need to prove a damn thing and can just agree with everyone while pushing your shitty idea. Then others with bad intentions can all say WOW OBJECTIVISM IS HOT STUFF while citing you and you all go big

(((Intellectuals))) are a fucking meme, it's mostly horse shit

memflag

It does sound like even if you disagree with op on the traditions, you agree that capitalism is anti ethical.

Capitalism is good because it works and plays well with technology, which is key for improving people's quality of life. I'd say that letting greed and commerce take over your value system (presents!) is a big problem, and it's where we've been heading.

But capitalism eventually leads to that making the whole ”ethical capitalism” a fools errand. I would also question the entire ”it works well”.

> Foreigners tend to be poor and to move into poor areas.

Nope. Third poorest single town/neighborhood in the US is 96.4% white. The whole "poverty drives crime" argument is bullshit, because said town (Wolf Point Montana) is virtually crime free and has strong participation rates. You seem to be pulling the same shit in regards to poor people on this issue. The study measured homogeneous groups of non-white background too and found that they too had relatively high social health indicators (with the exception of criminality which was very high in all black neighbourhoods/towns)

>Yeah bro, kind of ignoring Reaganomics and the economic assrape of the working class there.

I'm literally not, you didn't even bother to read 5 words after your quoted area apparently, because I specifically state that the progressive agenda and neoliberalism have the same effect, as they are symbiotic: destroy tradition > new markets emerge > Capitalists move into cultural vacuum to sell shit. It's all the same agenda.