Is Sup Forums the last bastion of anti-capitalism on Sup Forums?

Is Sup Forums the last bastion of anti-capitalism on Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9xXJKdo8M
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Fuck off commie. Go back to your gay orgy with other Sanders supporters.

firspostbestpost

op is a faggot

/r/politics
/r/cuckforpresident

Sup Forums is consumerism and computer assistance, the board.

Why would it be? Technology is driven by capitalism.

I'd rather be dead than red you commie piece of shit. Socialism is no better than communism either.

Capitalism, ho!

You forgot

/leftypol is the place you are looking for, user

>technology is driven by capitalism

>8gag

Stupid people think that because technology is driven by capitalism in a capitalist society that it will starve and die without it. Technology is actually one of the few things communism would be great for... until the entire fucking world collapsed because it's a terrible idea.

Almost done every other board has less consumerism.

Republic/Democracy != Capitalism
Although Capitalism is traditionally considered an economic system it is now a viable form of government where control is indirect (and comes from the rich).

Yea, that's why Nazi Germany consisted of dirt-farmers. And why the Soviet Union never stood a chance against America.

L2History

FUCK THE BERN!

>Capitalism, ho!
It's really disappointing how many people fail to understand government. America is a republic as are many other western nations. Capitalism wasn't intended as a form of government because making it one is a fucking retarded idea.

Capitalism aligns what technology gets developed and what research gets done with things that are useful to stuff people want to use and that makes their lives better.

Work force automation is capitalisms last stand.

I'd just like to interject for a moment, what you are referring to as capitalism is in fact Republic/Capitalism or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Republic + Capitalism. Capitalism is not a government unto itself, but rather an economic system of a fully functioning society made useful by the people comprising a full nation as defined by constitution.

If bernie doesn't win then I'm moving to Venezuela, fuck capitalism.

No, capitalism requires competition to function, creating pointless boundaries known as companies which fight each other rather than work together, slowing progress in order to milk consumers more effectively.

meme'd well but capitalism can exist in any form of government, including Socialism and Communism. The difference would be citizen control over the controls put in place for capitalism. Technically N. Korea is a Dictatorship+Capitalist nation. Outside companies are permitted to operate in N. Korea although it's an absolutely terrible idea (a dictatorship can claim your assets at any time).

...

It's a seductive dream to think that planning can replace competition. It can't. A cooperative, rather than competitive, economy requires planners.
For one, the planners necessarily have only a 30,000-foot view of what's going on in the economy. They can never have enough information about economic preferences at the level of individuals and individual companies to be able to take them into account.
For another, creating a planning bureaucracy ties the whole economy to an institution that has every incentive to decline into sclerotic inefficiency and corruption. If there's a shortage of boots capitalism responds immediately - prices go up, and profit-seeking individuals and companies smell money and set about producing, importing, and selling more boots. As opposed to that happening only if the planners realize it's going on, and if they do realize, getting around to ordering some factory to produce boots.
And finally, you have the central failing of collectivist systems - how do you handle people who don't want to go along with diktats from the planning committee? You either sacrifice any semblance of a free society and give government complete control over people's lives, with the ability to use force to get them to comply, or you have people who go off and run their own affairs the way they want to, which makes your planning department ineffectual and superfluous.

I should especially note,
>slowing progress in order to milk consumers more effectively.
if consumers are being milked, the high profits being made attract competitors to the market to provide the same goods and services for lower prices. The central failing we have today isn't the presence of competition, it's that we have too little of it, thanks to heavy government regulation.

The nature of capitalism is collection. You have several companies that have the ability to buy smaller companies. They do so to eliminate competition and integrate any useful processes/technologies. Capitalism is essentially survivalism, the equivalent in nature would be if humans exterminated all other forms of life on the planet because it is most useful to our survival.

...

true freedom is sleeping on other people's couches and eating bits of your feet while reading articles that you've emailed to yourself about bernie sanders on your lemote yeeloong.

>The central failing we have today isn't the presence of competition, it's that we have too little of it, thanks to heavy government regulation.
I can somewhat agree with this. (Not the guy you were responding to). A great example deals with cable companies as ISPs. It started out in the 60s/70s with cable companies being given HUGE leniency with taxes and monopoly status to attract them to towns. Once they got there they quickly made sure no competition could exist. They'd either undercut them at a loss or sue them out of business. The tactics are the same today, if you try to form an ISP, cable companies will actually try to sue you out of business. They won't make legitimate claims, but you still have to appear in court to avoid a default ruling. It'd be really entertaining to crowdsource against them. Get thousands of people to file frivolous lawsuits knowing that the company cannot respond to all of them. The cable companies get default rulings and lose millions.

>he central failing we have today isn't the presence of competition, it's that we have too little of it, thanks to heavy government regulation
Such government regulation was lobbied in by corporations in the first place.

>Such government regulation was lobbied in by corporations in the first place.
Very this.

Lobbyists are shitbags.

everyone in this thread should kill themself

In all honersty: you have a lot of commies on Sup Forums and Sup Forums.

Also tech should not be about politics.

There's some relevance. Progression of technology thrives on competition. It's not 100% necessary but it helps speed things up.

sorry *themselves

Sup Forums is by far the most consumerfag board on the site.

Gnu+Cuck or Gnu/Cuck

This.

All progress is driven by capitalism. No better system exists.

>He is complaining about competition in the markets, without realizing that Capitalism provided him the computer he is typing on.

>Made in PRC

That's the irony of the freetard movement. They bite the hand that feeds them.

>L2History
both fell, dafuq is wrong with you

To all the cucks defending capitalism ITT: I hope you enjoy all the Pajeets capitalism is bringing in to replace you for less than minimum wage.

If you are a worker and a reactionary at the same time, you deserve all the bad things that happen to you. If you claim to be pro-software freedom but still defends capitalism, then you have cognitive dissonance problems.

Also, if you love capitalism so much, then why aren't you working 16 hours a day in a factory alongside your wife and kids for 1 dollar a day?

Daily reminder that every time you download free software, you download communism.

Capitalism is a product of natural human interaction over thousands of years. It wasn't invented, it is literally a name for humans doing what humans do (fucking trading)

Ever since I saw that RMS pic I've devoted my life to making proprietary software and taking people's freedoms.

The only reason the USSR and Nazi Germany pushed ahead with technology was because they were at war, or preparing for war, ie the cold war. That form of competition pushed them forward.

Unless you are proposing we constantly be at war to create a competitive environment, instead of using capitalism.

I think a reasonable balance can be had between free software and paid software. I do tend to lean toward the RedHat model though where you're paying for the support, not the software.

>Unless you are proposing we constantly be at war to create a competitive environment
Oh you mean like the majority of America's existence?

You are extremely ignorant of history, economics and even etymology, because you don't even realize the origin of the name "capitalism".

Capitalism is nowhere natural, that's nothing but libertarian rhetoric, and it's easy to refute: do you believe money reproduces? Do you think it's possible for two coins together to procreate?

If you said yes, you need a headcheck. If you said no, like you should, then you realize it is unnatural for money to generate money. And that's exactly what happens in capitalism, and whence it gets its name.

"Capital" comes from the Latin and means literally "head". More specifically, of cattle, because that was a common manner of exchange in the Roman Empire. That's what money is: an exchange tool. That's not what happens in capitalism.

In capitalism, money has become a wealth begetter in itself.

>"I make my money multiply as fast as those sheep." (Shylock, The Merchant of Venice)

No I don't mean like most of America's existence. Nothing has really challenged America since the fall of the USSR.

Fighting with shitty middle eastern countries is not comparable to the Cold War.

No, that's exactly what happens in capitalism. Money isn't just a means of exchange, it's a means of measuring and quantifying value, which facilitates exchange. When Shylock multiplies his money, he's just saying that he can measure how much his stuff is worth, and that his actions make that number go up.

It's perfectly natural and 100% unobjectionable to use the stuff you have to get other stuff that's worth more. People have been doing that ever since the first guy to domesticate sheep realized that if he didn't kill them and eat them this year, he could have a larger flock next year. Or that he could keep them alive, shear off the wool, trade the wool for food to live off of, and have some food left over to trade for another sheep, so that he'd have more wool next year, and so on.

Why would any of this be immoral or wrong?

>shitty middle eastern countries
>ISIS continuously pwn 'murka in the Middle East and would be even worse if it wasn't for Russia

wew

>When Shylock multiplies his money, he's just saying that he can measure how much his stuff is worth, and that his actions make that number go up.

You're simply outright dumb, a shill, or have never read the play. He's clearly and unequivocally referring to usury.

>Why would any of this be immoral or wrong?

Literally EVERY moral code out there condemns usury.

The entire drone industry revolves around the Middle East. Defense contractors are making billions off the conflicts. America definitely sees them as a credible threat.

Sanders is a better choice than Trump.

>fighting the groups we arm
Brah. There's a reason why America isn't killing ISIS, and it's not because sandniggers are good at hiding.

Who won the Vietnam war?

>not capitalism
>not socialism
>not communism
>not liberalism
>not conservatism

Sup Forums is loyal to consumerism, and will die to defend it.

>hey guys, im thing about buying (x), what do you think?
>i bought (x) for $(y}, did i do good?
>guy on craigslist is selling (x) for (y), should i buy?
>headphone/phone/laptop thread

pic is you.

Usury is a completely arbitrary definition. If there is to be credit at all - if anyone is to loan anything to anyone else for any reason - who's to say that 15.99% APR is fine while 16.0% is exploitative? Furthermore, nobody can force anyone else to take a loan. If you as a prospective borrower think that the lender is asking too much for the temporary use of his funds, do without. Don't take the money.

Another fundamental thing about a free market - no trade takes place unless both sides think they're winding up better off as a result of it. Anyway why is it any business of yours what lenders choose to charge others, and what rates those others choose to accept?

America is under no threat from terrorism or some boogieman in the middle east. The only real threat from these two are for politicians, who would be voted out in an instant if they were "soft on [insert communism, drugs, crime, terrorism, CP, or any other emotionally-charged topic]".

When they talk about terrorism being a threat to "national security," this is what they mean: if another terrorist attack happens and we voted against anti-terrorism funding, we might be voted out. That's it. It's not the physical security of the people, it's the threat to power of the corporate and political class that drives the war on [insert emotionally charged word].

By creating this external threat, politicians are able to rally the domestic populations and distract them from the issues that really matter to them. It's the oldest trick in the book.

A war is war in any form.

I wonder who could be behind this post...

This can 23 MBps (or more if use better performance or optimization)
More info with keyword: NIST Hash_DRBG (like Rng)
Name: FriendCipher (on GitHub), version: 0.5
Source: C (fast), C++ (readable)

^^ sorry, wrong site

Hello, Ahmed.

Wars have very different natures. You can't really compare a war like WW2 and a war like Vietnam. One war a clearly defined war amongst nations, the other was a proxy war with no defined objectives.

The motives for fighting a war matter as well. Wars of conquest like the Mexican-American War can hardly be compared to the War of 1812.

War is a very broad term. How do you fight a war against poverty, or drugs, or terrorism, or communism? There's no objective measure of victory other than complete elimination of those concepts, which is impossible.

>I WILL DISMANTLE THIS OPPRESSIVE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD BY BOARD

blog*

I'm not muslim, I'm just someone with a brain. If the goal is saving American lives, a war against McDonalds or General Motors would be a more effective use of our tax dollars. Hell, pigs kill more Americans than terrorists, perhaps a war on pigs would be a good idea.

>the fruits of a man's labor belongs to the state

In terms of advancement they're the same. There are new industries cropping up because of the Middle East.

>the fruits of a man's labour belong to his boss

>I'm not a Muslim, but I hate pigs
Lol ok Ahmed.

>muh free software
>runs on a Chinkpad made in a sweatshop specifically made to be consumed by the capitalist part of the world

not an argument

two men are capable of freely coming to an agreement. if a man accepts an agreement that he will work for my company for a given amount of pay a month, why do i owe him more? is he incapable of making decisions for himself?

What's the point of this webm?

This isn't an argument either, you corporate cuck.

>19575▶

>two men are capable of making an agreement
>but society organized as the state can't

You're clinically retarded.

...

>Proving communism is a lie

Good game

Nice meme.

i never made an agreement with the state to give them money in return for muh roads. if i refuse to take part in that "agreement" you call it, i get taken to jail. not an argument

Nice hypocrisy, you bastard. Didn't expect anything else from a filthy reactionary.

literally not an argument

capitalism goes everywhere these days.

>what is a republic?
>what are elections?
>what is democracy?
>what is voting?
>what is quorum?
>what are the bases of civilization?

Show me the lolbertardian and I'll show you a hypocrite who bashes public roads but still uses them.

>Capitalism creates tech and everything because capitalism is gr8

What are workers?

Thread full of dinguses

Nowhere on Sup Forums except some of /lit/ a year ago was anywhere close to anti capitalism, the only reason I'm here is for dank maymays and leftypol sucks most of the time.

Thank you tovarish

If that "agreement" didn't take place, you wouldn't have private property in the first place, you moron. Without order and the recognition and securement of our rights provided by the state, we'd go back to the stone age of rule of the strongest. Might makes right. Your private property is only yours until someone stronger shows up to take it away. "Libertarian society" is an oxymoron.

2/10, when you repeat yourself too much everyone figures out right away you're just trolling

so, if enough people in my country decide it's morally acceptable to take my property, that makes it ok? if enough people in my country decide it's ok to use a woman's vagina as public property, that makes it ok as well then? because my property is as much my property as a woman's vagina is her vagina. it's not up to you to decide what you get from me, yet the state takes my property by force anyways. you are very protective of your masters for a piece of human cattle

>soviet union
>fell
lol, have you heard of Putin?

at least the man who beats me over the head with a stick and takes my money doesn't have people on an anime image board defending his right to do so

>if I keep repeating something long enough, maybe it will become true?

got any arguments?

Well if there's a demand

Isn't this the guy who thinks his brain doesn't follow the laws of nature

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9xXJKdo8M