Capitalism feeds human addictions more than being an efficient method for resource allocation

What do you call a system where a McChicken is cheaper than most vegetables? It's a system that enables low level addictions in human beings. Capitalism has lost its meaning and purpose. Hail communism!!

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

central planning is bullshit

...

>central planning is bullshit
Why do you say that?

>what do you call a system where a McChicken is cheaper than most vegetables
One that's definitely not getting holodomor'd

>One that's definitely not getting holodomor'd
So you prefer to eat yourself to death rather than starve to death? Either way, it's a gruesome death, so what's the difference?

Because it is. Outside of very small states it is utterly ineffective. Posting a picture of fat spics doesn't change this.

>Why worry bro just be tortured to death life saving chemo sux too just take it already.
Fuck off, heirarchy exists the working class is gokd for nothing else than working.

>Outside of very small states it is utterly ineffective.
What is government regulation then? Isn't it a form of central planning? For a free market to exist, you need a government not to intervene and regulate the market. When you don't regulate the market, you get the obese spics you disparage because McDonalds doesn't give a shit how many chickens it kills or how many people's arteries it clogs. Do you know why? Because there is no regulation on how many chickens McDonalds can kill.

Face it, any sector of the U.S. economy that's even vaguely balanced is because of regulation aka central planning from the government.

>>Why worry bro just be tortured to death life saving chemo sux too just take it already.
This is taking what I said to the extreme. The user said that he'd rather not starve to death. What I said implied that the alternative is being bombarded with so much information and commercials that you lose your sense of self control.

The reason I say this is because capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Those who own the means of production will always want to sell more - why? because it's in their evolutionary nature to keep selling rather than stagnating and being bought out.

So I assert that there's no difference between a central planning committee that's horrible at its job and starves people to death and capitalism which overfeeds people and ruins their health.

>Capitalism is private production
I disagree with that, because capitalism is a mode of production in which every business is privately owned for the sake of PROFIT, they will not care whom they harm, as long as they get money, unless they lighten up on it for the sake of advertisement, if you remove the aspect of profit from the private production, then you will no longer have capitalism and it's symptoms.

Edgy.

...

...

I agree with the problems you see but not your solution. Centrally planned economies always result in utter misery, and outside of specific projects like the space race kill innovation.

What do you define as central planning?

An economy in which resources are allocated by the state rather than by the market.

Non space innovation in ussr include:

PHYSICS :

First nuclear power plant, Obninsk (1954)

Development of the largest thermonuclear experimental facility in the world, Tokamak 10, prototype of a thermonuclear reactor

Invention of the Tzar Bomba, the most powerful nuclear bomb in history (100 Mt) whose power was reduced for environmental reasons (50-57 Mt). Comparison to USA bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 15 Mt

Invention of nuclear fusion

Invention of the Tokamak (1956), aiming to provide apparatus fusion plasma particle

Invention of the first nuclear icebreaker "LENIN" world's first nuclear-powered (1952)

Invention of particle accelerator microtron (1944)

Invention synchrotron particle accelerator (1957)

Invention of the electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy (1944)

First fast neutron reactor, BN350 (1955)

Creation pipeline longest history, Druzhba (1964)

First nuclear desalination reactor, BN-350 (1972)

First reflectron (1973)

Creating the largest geotechnical probe history, Kola Well (1970)

Creating BARS Press (1989)

So are you stating that because resources are redirected to the state, they kill innovation?

ELECTRONICS:

Invention of the LED (Oleg Vladimirovich, 1927) (So if you're reading this on an LED screen, you have Commies to thank.)

Invention of vibratory exercise equipment (1960)

Perfecting maser, Basov and Aleksandr Prokhorov Nikolai

Lomography Invention (1982)

First lie detector device, by Alexander Romanovich Luria

Creating underwater welding, Konstantin Khrenov (1932)

First reflector telescope, the Maksutov (1941)

First laser microphone (1947)

Creating the magnetotelluric (1950)

Discovery of the Belousov-Zhabotinski Reaction (1951)

Creation explosive compression generator pumped flow (1951)

Creating 3D holography (1962)

First microwave oven (1941)

First radio antenna

MEDICINE:

Invention of therapies against infectious diseases that were based on bacteriophage virus (1940)

Early surgical treatment of congenital heart disease, by pioneering Bukulev Alexander (1948)

Creation of Objective Psychology, by neurologist Vladimir Bekhterev, also known for pointing out the role of the hippocampus in memory, his study of reflexes, and Bekhterev's disease

First successful cornea transplant in 1931, by Vladimir Filatov, who developed tissue therapy

Creating radial keratotomy by Svyatoslav Nikolayevich Fyodorov

Creating the Ilizarov apparatus for lengthening limb bones and for the Ilizarov Surgery (1951) by Gavriil Abramovich Ilizarov

Creating cultural-historical psychology, psychological activity theory and method of "combined power", by Alexander Romanovich Luria

Enlarge criteria for the diagnosis of schizophrenia with the distinction between negative and positive symptoms, a key research and classification of schizophrenia concept, Andrei Snezhnevsky

First cardiac surgery under local anesthesia, Alexander Vishnevsky, 1953

Foundation of purulent surgery, Archbishop Luka Voyno-Yasenetsky, Stalin Prize, Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1946.

First artificial organ transplant

First transfusion of blood from a corpse, Sergei Yudin, 1929.

First blood bank. Created by Sergei Yudin in early 1930. Middle of that same year, the USSR would have 65 large blood donation centers and more than 500 branches.

Creation of painless childbirth (under anesthesia)

Creating Gramicina S (1942)

First head transplant with full brain function (1950)

Creating anthropometric cosmetology (1952)

Creating radial keratotomy (1974)

Discovery of Vitamins

Discovery of the virus

First acoustic microscope (1959)

Since when does everything go according to plan?

I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet, so I can't read all this shit. I'm genuinely interested though, so please post some sources on what was great about the Soviet Union and I'll read when I have brain power.

COMPUTERS:

First programmable computer MESM (1950)

First Soviet and European electronic computers , BESM (Sergey Lebedev, 1951) and MESM (Sergey Lebedev , 1958)

First computer with ternary logic (faster and more reliable than the binary system), Setun (Nikolai Brusentsov, 1958) and model development Setun-70 (Nikolai Brusentsov, 1970) which further reinforced the aspect of programming, improving to by a factor 5 software development over other architectures time

First personal computer, MIR (Victor Glushkov, 1965)

First computer-aided education system in history (Nastavnik), with a clear reference to the current

First superscalar computer (processor microarchitecture capable of executing more than one instruction per clock cycle), Elbrus-1 (Boris Babaian, 1970). The use of this equipment in 1978, ten years before commercial applications appeared in the West, the Soviet Union developed its missile systems and nuclear and space programs.

Foundation of cybernetics (Victor Glushkov)

Invention of Tetris (Alexey Pajitnov, 1984)

Invention of the FAR file manager, RAR and WinRAR format file (Eugene Roshal)

First computer animated character

First mobile phone, Leonid Ivanovich Kupriyanovich (1955), which was copied by - the USA in 1970 and Finland in 1980 gave him a civil use with Nokia.

If the USSR were able to utilize nuclear energy first, then how do you explain the nuclear bomb? And are you stating that a telescope with mirrors in it had not existed until the USSR? I am also fairly certain that those had existed since the 16th century.

...

ART:

Creation of the polyphonic or contrapuntal, metric, rhythmic, harmonic, melodic assembly. Previous conceptual audiovisual modalities, including video and clip, by Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein

Invention of xerography

Creation of chroma

Kinopanorama Invention (1956)

SOCIAL ACHIEVEMENTS :

First and totally FREE public education system, which achieved the highest rates of literacy in history in the 15 Soviet republics. Moreover, Soviet schools offered free food for students, so the work-life balance is made much easier than today in the capitalist countries. Even kindergartens were also free.

First FREE and universal health care system, which increased the life expectancy of the Soviets, less than 40 years in 1917, to reach Western levels in 80 (70 years). The achievements of hunger eradication and health systems can also compare with the average height of the Soviets in 1917 (1,60 m) to 1980 (1,80 m). This health system discovered painless childbirth and performed the first organ transplant.

Between 1945 and 1964, the Soviet national income grew by 570%, compared to 55% in the USA (and remember that the USSR was not a Marshal Plan to help the country)

Invention of evening studies so that workers could build careers.

First country in history where abortion was legal and free (since 1920)

First country in history to achieve an unemployment rate at 0%

Equality policies, one of the first countries to adopt women's suffrage

First woman in history to hold a position in a government (Aleksandra Kollontai)

>Capitalism feeds human addictions more than being an efficient method for resource allocation

Thats called having enough food to stay alive. Fuck off commie.

Capitalism sure does feed those pesky addictions like hunger and clean water.

This was driven by external war pressure. If the world was communist you can sure be sure as hell that not a single one of these things would be invented

Lies after lies

Again, I have to doubt these idea's, while I do not care at all about art, you have to admit that most of the healthcare systems were not effective at all, and put a massive burden on the government, as well as that, the wages were non existant in the 30's and 40's, being akin to slave wages, and, obviously, there were women in government thousands of years before the USSR, does Cleopatra ring a bell?

Capitalisms meaning & purpose has always been to keep the rich, rich. So it's still working just fine.

Oh, I forgot to mention as well, that the nazi's achieved 0% unemployment before the soviets, and I also cast doubt that there truly was 0% unemployment.

>Capitalism is private production
>I disagree with that, because capitalism is a mode of production in which every business is privately owned for the sake of PROFIT
Do you even read what you type?
>if you remove the aspect of profit from the private production, then you will no longer have capitalism and it's symptoms.
Controlling the profits of private companies is called central planning. Thanks for proving my point.

>Since when does everything go according to plan?
Kek.

and cucks love it!

...

This is all wasteful bullshit that could have been going to benefit the workers. Why we need space bullshit and bigger bombs when we could have made more Ladas and VCR's

Yeah, they do, it's a sorry fucking state of affairs. But there's no escape. The rich have already won. It's game over. Our only hope now is mass-worldwide suicide

>Posting a pic that's been recycled and countered so many times that you don't realize you're a retard for posting it again.
Here's the problem with the graph you cite, it uses dollars to define how prosperous people are. But since the dollar is strong only because the U.S. controls the oil trade, $1.9 in the U.S. does not equate to $1.9 in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka doesn't control the oil trade, and hence using dollars to estimate the standard of living in Sri Lanka is an incorrect approach since people don't need to sell shit to Sri Lanka just so that they can get dollars to buy oil from Saudi Arabia.

Now that I've explained why you're retarded, try your best to analyze your graphs before you act like a fanboy and post them. You don't want your ass handed to you by a commie, now do you?

>to reach Western levels in 80 (70 years)

So.. Absolute shit were old people are left to die in the urgencies rooms? I dont get it, you compare yourself and set the goals to look like with the same sistem you criticize, this case rigthfully, western public hospitals are shit and could do much better, hell you could privatize them and insure that the money you spent in erecting públic hospitals went sollely to pay the patiets bills in the privatized places, and it would do better because it would be further free from central planning

>If the world was communist you can sure be sure as hell that not a single one of these things would be invented
Name an invention due to capitalism that's in line with long term evolutionary well being of the human race.

>Capitalisms meaning & purpose has always been to keep the rich, rich. So it's still working just fine.
Kek.

>This is all wasteful bullshit that could have been going to benefit the workers.
Yeah, soviet central planning sucked.

>Absolute shit were old people are left to die in the urgencies rooms?
Is it any different in capitalism? Do old people who are poor have it better in capitalism?

>which overfeeds people and ruins their health
If you have not taken up the personal responsibility to keep yourself healthy and eating well, you are a sack of shit.

Sigh

...

>the Soviet national income grew by 570%
Lmao

570% of $1 is $570 dollars. Wew.

Part of the reason that even happened is because near the end of WWII, the Russian army raided Reinhard Heydrich‘s former eastern outpost and discovered a study conducted in occupied Ukraine in which he and his associates essentially proved that a totally centrally planned economy cannot possibly calculate prices. The soviet authorities (namely Khrushchev) later incorporated the findings into the Soviet economic system in the mid-to-late 1950s and this loosening of grip over economic activity gradually reduced starvation rates primarily caused by collectivization.

What’s it like knowing that the only time your beloved shithole ever stopped starving people was when they became quasi-fascists? Hahahaha

...

>duh economy went from 500 billion to 200 billion xd capitalism doesn't work
Is that why it went from 200 billion to over 2 TRILLION in only 13 years

>>which overfeeds people and ruins their health
>If you have not taken up the personal responsibility to keep yourself healthy and eating well,
You misunderstand what I'm trying to convey. I'm not saying that capitalism is bad because people don't take responsibility of their actions. Like I explained in my post, due to the means of production being owned by private entities, from an evolutionary perspective, only those entities that constantly strive for market growth survive in the long run.

How do get people to buy more and more of your products? You bombard them with commercials. This is no different from soviet propaganda where people were bombarded with programming over and over again.

The only difference is that soviets sucked at central planning and thus the people there starved, whereas capitalists excel and getting people to buy stuff they don't need, and hence you ruin the peoples' lives in a different way.

The use of dollars is incidental. It could be converted to any other currency and literally nothing on the graph would change. Do you not understand how currency works?

That’s like if I said 0 degrees celcius is pretty cold and you said it isn’t because I’m baised for not using 32 degrees farenheit. You’re a moron and you have no point at all.

Also, I’ve yet to see this chart “debunked” even once. Bluffing like an idiot with no citations only makes you look dumb.

No, that's the point, if those are your standards you are no differant from them, exept you bunch larp as friends to the proletariat whereas they keep voting traditional (thus pissing you off)

It´s good that Stalin killed the capitalists by putting them into food withdrawal so only true communists survived.

The currency chosen for the graph is totally irrelevant. If you converted the dollar values to Sri Lankan currency the actual economic value expressed would be the exact same because they don’t have a 1:1 exchange rate. You don’t automatically have more buying power just because you have more numeric quantities of a different currency.

Dumbest post I’ve read in 2018.

>The use of dollars is incidental.
It's not.
>It could be converted to any other currency and literally nothing on the graph would change.
Yeah, because the graph is trying to compare standards of living which are not objective measures - but subjective measures. You may think that people in NY are happy, but it's quite possible that people in Gokarna India, who have free access to weed, are far more happier. Standard of living is a very subjective index that is dependent on the desires and available amenities of people living in an area.

I'm not going to argue that Americans have it better than the Congolese, but I'm not stupid enough to connect economic freedom to poverty. Poverty is subjective, and people in India who have access to economic freedom would be considered poor if you used that graph.

>Do you not understand how currency works?
Just don't. I can whoop your ass in the explanation of currency any day of the week.

>That’s like if I said 0 degrees celcius is pretty cold and you said it isn’t because I’m baised for not using 32 degrees farenheit.
Except temperature is not a subjective assessment. There are well defined ways to measure temperature - you use mercury or some other sensor, everyone agrees on what 0 degrees is (or there is an international standard), and then everyone follows that standard.

Poverty index is controversial, and is used for propaganda more than anything.

>You’re a moron and you have no point at all.
No need to project yet.

>Bluffing like an idiot with no citations only makes you look dumb.
Citing graphs you don't understand makes you look like a fanatical moron.

communism feeds...... nobody

I cant wait to hang communists from lamp posts then we wont have to listen to their stupid fucking starvation ideology anymore.

>No, that's the point, if those are your standards you are no differant from them,
Why? Old people in the US are unhappy and the old people in Soviet Russia were unhappy. So what's the point here?

>exept you bunch larp as friends to the proletariat whereas they keep voting traditional (thus pissing you off)
That is a fair accusation. Most commies who want power really don't care about the proletariat - just like capitalists.

>The currency chosen for the graph is totally irrelevant.
It is absolutely relevant. The dollar is strong only because we control the oil trade. If we didn't control the oil trade, we wouldn't be too far from Sri Lanka because almost nothing of value is produced in the U.S. right now which is not manufactured anywhere else in the world.

>If you converted the dollar values to Sri Lankan currency the actual economic value expressed would be the exact same because they don’t have a 1:1 exchange rate.
Yes, because Sri Lanka doesn't control the oil trade, and people don't need to sell Sri Lanka shit to buy oil. They need to sell U.S. shit to get dollars to buy oil.

> You don’t automatically have more buying power just because you have more numeric quantities of a different currency.
Correct, you have buying power if you have a resource of value that everyone wants. Saudi Arabia and OPEC have oil, which everyone wants, and SA and OPEC sell it in dollars, thus making the dollar strong. The dollar's strength does not come from the actual goods and services produced in the U.S.

>Dumbest post I’ve read in 2018.
Never mind.

The point is making a regime where people are happy or at least happier than the previous generation, it is possible to have good hospitals were people os cared for with quality

why is being obese worse than starving? are you serious right now or being a memester?

>It's not
Saying things with no support whatsoever again. Yawn.
>Yeah, because the graph is trying to compare standards of living which are not objective measures - but subjective measures
Standards of living are calculated on a pure, measureable income basis. There’s no subjectivity about it, it’s numbers and numbers alone. Maybe you’re trying to say the presupposition that income level being higher is automatically better is a subjective opinion, but that isn’t the argument. The argument is whether or not Free market Capitalism is a better resource allocation system than Central planning. On a pure resource standpoint, that is evidently the case.
>You may think that people in NY are happy, but it's quite possible that people in Gokarna India, who have free access to weed, are far more happier
What does happiness have to do with anything? The argument is about resource allocation. Besides, the presupposition that maximizing happiness should be the ultimate goal in life is ridiculous. If that were the case, you’d have no reason not to sit at home and shoot up heroin every day. Emotions and stimulations have a functional purpose and existing solely to please yourself physically and chemically is a hollow existence.
>Poverty is subjective
Words have definitions, retard.
>”Poverty is the scarcity or the lack of a certain amount of material possessions or money.”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
It is not a fluid term with interpreted meaning. It is the physical lack of material necessities for life. Not subjective.
>Just don't. I can whoop your ass in the explanation of currency any day of the week
I’m curious why you haven’t yet.

>What do you call a system where a McChicken is cheaper than most vegetables?


Fantasy land, probably, seeing how I can easily get 3 kilos of apples (not veggies but point stands) for the price of ONE McChicken here.

US has been a economic powerhouse long before finding oil, that is no excuse, sri Lanka doesnt have the same resources, valuable companies, infraestrutures, skilled workers..

>The point is making a regime where people are happy or at least happier than the previous generation
See, that's really dependent on good propaganda. Are we happy in the U.S. when we're being constantly being bombarded with how Trump's presidency is horrible? I think he's doing a fine job, but most of the normies I speak to don't think so. They listen to the news blindly and internalize everything. Same thing with the soviets. They sucked at propaganda.

So the only reason you think the soviets were unhappy is because you're told so. Sure, they were unhappy because their central planning committee sucked, but do you think we're going to be happy when we lose control of the oil trade? No, our country has outsourced all the jobs and the only reason the party is still going on is because we control the oil trade.

So when you say that every generation should be happier than the previous generation, that's just a pipe dream because its almost never sustainable in reality.

>it is possible to have good hospitals were people os cared for with quality
You can argue for this on both sides. Sure, having good healthcare is important for the wellbeing of a country's economy. But healthcare in the long run allows humans to breed weaker human beings.

As unpalatable as this is going to sound, and I apologize if I offend you or anyone else (because I know this is rude and hurtful to say), but having treatments for cancer essentially inhibits natural selection where people with faulty genetics can be bred out of the population.

The point I'm trying to make is, getting amenities that make life easier and better healthcare is not an evolutionary boon in the long run - it's a curse. But I'm not going to defend the soviet central planning - they sucked.

>why is being obese worse than starving?
Are you obese?

Do you know how to read? The graph does not revolve around the United States. The USA is not the totality of the world. The graph aggregates the trend of the entire world’s economies based on relative wealth compared with government control. Even if the USA’s economy collapsed tomorrow the trend of the graph would still largely be the same.

It’s also pretty embarrassing of you to assume that the US is the definitive representative of the free market economy. There are numerous nations much more free than us that are responsible for the low poverty indicated on the graph.

I never stated that I was against it.

These numbers are either "Low bad thing and high good thing based on our definitions of those bad and good things" or are flat out lies.

no but your system produces starvation as opposed to capitalisms problem of obesity, it's a way better pandemic to have objectively.

>Saying things with no support whatsoever again. Yawn.
U.S. controls the oil trade. Everyone has to sell us shit to get dollars to buy oil. Thus using dollars to measure poverty is not only subjective, it's outright misleading. If we lost control of the oil trade, we'd be as poor as Sri Lanka because there are no jobs in the U.S. anymore. We run trade deficits in practically every sector of the economy except food and petroleum.
>Standards of living are calculated on a pure, measureable income basis.
Income as in currency? See above.
>The argument is about resource allocation.
Haha, no it isn't. It's about correlating economic freedom - which is subjective - to poverty - also subjective since only U.S. controls the oil trade.
>Words have definitions, retard.
Yes, but how do you measure poverty? Is there is a worldwide standard that everyone agrees to? Fucking no. Even economists argue on different poverty indices and you're going to tell me that there's a standard? I'm seriously beginning to think you're just trolling at this point.
>>”Poverty is the scarcity or the lack of a certain amount of material possessions or money.”
>Citing wikipedia
Good job.
>I’m curious why you haven’t yet.
All in good time. First I've to make you understand that you're a moron because you don't understand how the U.S. economy is being sustained purely because of oil. That'll make you understand that the gold standard has been replaced with an oil standard which the U.S. controls, and then I can make you understand currency.

All in good time user.

>>What do you call a system where a McChicken is cheaper than most vegetables?
>Fantasy land,
Kek.

Theres a video around about Israel influencing the internet.

Been a lot of strange activity on board last couple days.

Never once did I claim that I was a marxist socialist.

If a system goes against the definitions that been set against it since it's inception, does that mean that it is no longer apart of the system that is defined? You just claimed that in national socialism, and how it isn't marxist socialism?

>US has been a economic powerhouse long before finding oil,
We came out of the depression only because of WW2, and the only reason we were a powerhouse after that is because only we had a functioning industrial complex that was not obliterated by war.

Proof? We shifted to an oil standard and reneged on the Bretton Woods system as soon as we started getting buttfucked in Vietnam.

Die commie

And, I was quoting you, pal.

The solution for commies.

>Do you know how to read? The graph does not revolve around the United States
>Poverty measured in dollars
>Graph does not revolve around the United States.
Why are you fuckers so good at projecting? I thought only the left projected.
>Even if the USA’s economy collapsed tomorrow the trend of the graph would still largely be the same.
Oh heck no. If we collapsed tomorrow, the graph would be turned by 180 degrees.
>It’s also pretty embarrassing of you to assume that the US is the definitive representative of the free market economy.
When did I say the U.S. is a free market? I've constantly maintained that we're capitalist. Capitalism does not equate to free market.
>There are numerous nations much more free than us that are responsible for the low poverty indicated on the graph.
Name a few - also make sure you're naming those who don't have central planning (So no retarded answers like Denmark, or Scandinavia), and those who haven't faced recession in recent times - recession is the failure of the market.

What's wrong with a McChicken?

Chicken, bread, and lettuce?

Big deal!

Yeah but communism isn't an alternative retard. Criticizing capitalism doesnt make communism look good. Not anymore.

Your arguments are so boring. Every time someone proves what you say is bullshit you run off on some tangent about how it must be propaganda or someone cheated to get a higher living standard than your centrally planned shithole.

Has another point which completely annihilates your retarded argument. The USA has been the world’s leading economic power for decades prior to muh oil wars. Pic related.

Although I’m sure that’s “propaganda xD” too right? Unlike this nonsense.

>>The argument is about resource allocation.
>Haha, no
The title of this thread is literally
>”Capitalism feeds human addictions more than being an efficient method for resource allocation”
You utter fucking idiot.

>Citing wikipedia
*boomer posting intensifies*

Everything you’ve said is just embarrassing and obviously wrong. The vibe I’ve gathered from you is that you’re most likely a depressed, pasty white kid who harps on and on about how capitalism fails to bring happiness because you have no meaningful social connections in your life. And so now you’ve latched onto something you view as being unique and interesting in the desperate hope that its practical application will make up for your lack of happiness in life.

>You misunderstand what I'm trying to convey
Your explanation of it is piss poor and reeks of fluffed up talking points make little to no sense. Judging by the rest of your response, which I will address, it seems you also missed the point I was trying to make. This leads me to believe you are a mouth breather from /leftypol/ that could fuck up a wet dream. I am saying that it is up to the individual to maintain their health, not the system. The system can facilitate this, but ultimately it is up to a person to make the decision. I'm saying instead of blaming the system, look towards issues that you can fix in order to maintain your health. There are many ways to do this.

>I'm not saying that capitalism is bad because people don't take responsibility of their actions.
This is irrelevant to the statement I was making. This is obvious from the sentiment of the OP that you would be saying capitalism is bad, but the subject is health and you are simplifying an issue to fit your dogmas in a piss poor way. I understand that capitalism is subversive, you don't have to beat the reader over the head with this idea.

>Like I explained in my post, due to the means of production being owned by private entities, from an evolutionary perspective, only those entities that constantly strive for market growth survive in the long run.
Yes, this is about the 20th time you've made this statement in one form or another in this thread. Again, you do not have to beat the reader over the head with it. Doing so indicated you do not have a strong argument.

>How do get people to buy more and more of your products? You bombard them with commercials.
This doesn't mean that people will buy your products, will it? You hinted towards McDonalds, but recent data has shown that they are currently having issues right now because people are buying LESS of their products. The individual is the one who purchases a good/service. Advertising, like propaganda, doesn't always work.

>Capitalism does not equate to free market
I can’t believe I actually made someone utter this idiocy.

>I never stated that I was against it.
I didn't say you were. I said your definition of capitalism was no different from what I said.

>no but your system produces starvation as opposed to capitalisms problem of obesity, it's a way better pandemic to have objectively.
Subjectively, not objectively. But yeah, I can't disagree with you on that. Perhaps it's better to be a slave and be in an illusion that everything's alright than live in reality and starve. I would also prefer that. So if the soviets upped their propaganda game to match the capitalists, it would have been nice.

>Your arguments are so boring.
Man, I should have realized sooner that you were a troll.

>Oh heck no. If we collapsed tomorrow, the graph would be turned by 180 degrees
>one data point out of hundreds completely changes the trend
someone flunked stats class I see. explains the flag.

>I'm saying instead of blaming the system, look towards issues that you can fix in order to maintain your health. There are many ways to do this.
And I'm saying humans haven't evolved to think logically from birth. If you get bombarded by commercials that tell you to be a certain way, then you're essentially being subjected to propaganda.

>I understand that capitalism is subversive,
Good, you and I agree. That's all I was trying to convey.

>Doing so indicated you do not have a strong argument.
Hey, if the anons on this thread understood it, I wouldn't be repeating it.

>Doing so indicated you do not have a strong argument.
Do you see normies buying only the things they need and living a balanced life?

> Advertising, like propaganda, doesn't always work.
I know, but that's the point I was making. I was trying to convey that capitalism also leads to propaganda.

>Capitalism does not equate to free market
>I can’t believe I actually made someone utter this idiocy.
You do realize that capitalism means the means of production is owned by private entities whereas a free market is where there's no central planning aka a government intervention. Thus you can have a capitalistic market, where the means of production are owned by private entities, but there's a central planning committee that regulates certain sectors of the market?

Before you call others idiots, how about you brush up on basic definitions of the market?

>one data point out of hundreds completely changes the trend
>someone flunked stats class I see. explains the flag.
And you're saying you have the data on all the countries that went into making that graph?

How exactly would communism prevent McChicken from being produced? How does communal ownership of means of production prevent popular consumer goods from being produced? It doesn't. Communists should stop using this argument because it is bad. Communism is just as much of a consumerist nightmare as capitalism is. The only solution is fascism.

are you fucking retarded? i'm no communist but that's the stupidest fucking thing i've ever read.

name a communist country with a McDonald's, retard.

It wouldn't be called McDonald's, but they would still produce fried chicken sandwiches and other garbage. There is nothing about communal ownership of means of production which prevents consumerism.

And there are no communist countries. There have only been state socialist countries. Theoretical communism is stateless.

then why were people in the Soviet Union desperate to get their hands on American cars, jeans, and music? Why were the Soviets unable to produce equivalent goods for affordable prices?

Name the world's most popular consumer good produced by a communist or socialist system. You can't because there are none.

So the thing that would prevent a communist system from being able to produce capitalist goods is the fact that a communist system cannot possibly exist.

Well done, you lost your own argument.