"Communism is just wishful thinking, it doesn't actually work in practice"

> "Communism is just wishful thinking, it doesn't actually work in practice"
> Is a laissez-faire capitalist

Discuss

Good thing communist countries don't have any of those

You're one to talk, Willy Wonka, you use fucking slave labor to make your shitty chocolate.

Everything works on paper, yet nothing works in reality.

Welcome to humanity.

>> Is a laissez-faire capitalist

What? Why do you speak french?

All part of the plan, Ahmed.

>hurr durr I leanred laissex-faire was ebul from my socialist economics teacher.
it worked pretty well, actually. Wages rose and living conditions improved gradually throughout the 19th century with no government intervention.

man of many talents friendo

Sentimental Moralistic Utopianism is idiotic

Capitalism works great because it is a-moral, it only cares about efficiency

The term is indeed used in English

>worked
implying true laissez-faire economics have ever been successfully implemented.

the picture is irrelevant, i just searched laissez-faire meme on google and used the worst picture i found, hence the watermark in the bottom right

my point is, capitalist utopian models are as idealised as communist utopian models.

good answer

...

> capitalist utopian

Nice projection

there is nothing utopian about capitalism

the moment I exchange something I have in excess for something that I need and someone else has in excess, perfect capitalism has happened

Capitalism does not have as its requirement some sort of bizarre utopia where death does not exist and everyone is blissfully high as a kite

+1

are you actually implying that there are zero far-reaching, utopian capitalist philosophies?

Yes

Even the perfect world of Ayn Rand is world where losers starve and die: aka something that has actually happened, unlike "muh true communism"

>capitalism isn't perfect so that means my pants on head retarded ideology is just as good

but true laissez-faire capitalism doesn't create monopolies and is therefore a 100% meritocratic ideology. in real life we don't see this happening, we just see capitalism creating an elite and turning into another form of oligarchy, just like communism has always done. is it fair to say that communism "fails" and capitalism "succeeds" when they are both imperfect models? capitalism and communism were both meant to make it easier for the little man to get by in theory but it's fair to say that neither have succeeded.

your argument that modern capitalism is inherently amoral was solid, but i'm not sure why you are now arguing for the non-existence of more idealistic forms of capitalism.

it was just a thought i had and wanted to discuss. i'm not asserting anything, i'm playing devil's advocate.

Socialism and communism have all of that stuff too, and much worse. Plus, the mass murder of 10s of millions.

Look at it this way.

The more capitalism and freedom of enterprise you have, the better things are, even if you don't have perfect capitalism.
The more communism/government intervention you get, the worse things become, supposedly until you get perfect communism.

I think you are arguing against a strawman

Who said that "true laissez-faire capitalism doesn't create monopolies"? Sounds like a true scottman fallacy to me

Even Milton Friedman recognized that monopolies were unavoidable when it came to extremely scarce resources or for highly technological processes for which nature itself put limits on the ability of new competitors to create competing products, but it also encourages completely revolutionary methods to try to break those monopolies (ie an oil monopoly may encourage the development of new forms of energy)

As long as the competition, or at least the danger of competition exists, efficiency will rise, and consumers will benefit from it

> capitalism was for the little man

Who said that? I think that you argued against some christian-democrats, which usually try to sell the side-effects of capitalism as its objective, which is something very retarded

Capitalism is not a "plan to end poverty". Capitalism is a description of what normally happens when entities can freely exchanges goods and services.

The function of capitalism is not to bring about economic egalitarianism.

It is an observation of the fact that freedom and increased technological progression occur through competition, through the same extremely successful darwinian model that created all living beings on earth, and through that same competition to improve man himself

That poor people may actually live better under capitalistic societies is a side-effect, not the objective: Capitalism itself would benefit from a eugenic program designed to limit the exponential breeding of the poor masses, which are too short-sighted and usually fall for socialistic siren calls

Oversimplified, inaccurate hyperbole.

>simplified accurate deduction based on historical evidence
ftfy

Summerfags kids are invading again

I don't care about any of them. It's Fair.

another solid response, i like you

you don't like being made to think about what you take for granted so you just shout "summerfag"?

could it not be argued that if capitalism does create monopolies then those monopolies could assume the same power that governments have today? what's to stop a particularly powerful monopoly enforcing it's will on the people and ultimately implementing restrictions on trade and other socialist policies to ensure it stays on top?

Just passing by to say Milton Friedman, like yourself, was unable to refer to a single real monopoly. All things have alternative or replacements in real, free economies. That's were entrepreneurship and investment comes into play.