Capitalism is immoral. Period

Capitalism is immoral. Period.

When you put profit and materialistic success over the well-being of your own people, you've fallen lower than any degenerate would.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_films_of_1933–45
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

a lot of us here already know that

Other economic systems were even more exploitative and immoral.

wrong

Capitalism creates wealth and distributes it efficiently.

There is a difference between amoral and immoral you dense fucking retard

>muh material wealth

Morality is subjective, bitch.

Obviously not.

>were
Exactly, they were. They won't necessarily always be.

Completely false.
Not only does it morally corrupt the people, but it also rewards people inequitably. I'm all for being fair.

Being amoral inherently makes you immoral.
Not only did you not understand my basic idea, but you were also ignorant enough to make such an nonsensical point.

Capitalism was what built the Empire

>a fucking leaf

Never mind, shouldn't have posted any reply.

I can't imagine a viable alternative to Capitalism that would result it similar levels of productivity.

In advanced countries, the negative effects are counteracted by government action, so it's a system that can work.

Profit & materialistic success has a strong correlation to the peoples well being.

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Neo-Germans are lower than jews.

I agree that it did greatly help the growth of the world powers..however..nothing will come close to what National-Socialist Germany could have been.

Lemme guess? Real communism hasn't ever happened? Got a panflet for us?

Cultural Marxism is the devil.

That was a short-lived system, without a viable economic or social model.

Without substantial thought, either. Or does anyone remember movies or books from that era that are worthwhile?

Completely incorrect.
I'm talking about the people as in the population.

Communism is as disgusting as Capitalism.

>panflet
lol

that doesn't mean it's essential anymore, it's holding everyone, but the top few back.

>Being amoral inherently makes you immoral.

says who?

Cynicism is good. The problem with capitalism is that it's not cynical enough. It's crafted by people who fear for their lives.

Forced labor built the Empire.

Shouldn't you know that?

Says me.

Last time I checked, immorality is subjective.

>It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
Fuck you nigga

even if you're right that doesn't mean it needs to be immoral.

rocks are immoral, cabbage is immoral, trains are immoral, in fact really only some animals (which yes includes some humans) are ever "moral".

nobody forced workers into factories and no one forced the indians to grow cotton or canadians to supply timber

Then why is the well-being of my people orders of magnitude better than any non-capitalist country?

Name a non capitalist country in the world today.

Hard mode: name 5

Capitalism isn't a moral system, it doesn't put profit over "your own people," only you do that. Capitalism is an economic system which lets people have private property and allows free enterprise, if you take it as a moral value judgement that's your own retardation.

Allowing Capitalism to exist is immoral.

Not heavily regulating the market is like not creating a law against murder and letting people and the mobs regulate morality and sentences.

>nobody forced workers into factories
That's like saying no one forced a woman held at gun point to open her legs.

Coercion is forcing.

>Allowing Capitalism to exist is immoral.
What is immoral about capitalism?

In what way are they coerced into working there?

Evola wasn't anti-capitalist, you fucking leaf.

What he opposed was the worldview in which the economy is seen as the most important aspect of society.

>panflet
The intelligence of Communists on display right here, folks.

they could have stayed farm labourers if they wanted

Social Capitalism is the solution....aka Meritocracy.

Spoken like a true welfare poorfag. Kill yourself, literal human waste.

What exactly would that be? And In what way is capitalism not a meritocracy?

Kill yourself already.

>That was a short-lived system, without a viable economic or social model.
Yes, the system was a labor-backed system of social works, where the labor and the government spending grow at the same rate; while the money the government makes is re-invested into the worker and into infrastructure, which grows the economy.

You're an idiot for not knowing this.

>Or does anyone remember movies or books from that era that are worthwhile?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_films_of_1933–45

Here you go, moron.

Did I mention you should kill yourself already? You are truly a subhuman scum.

Capitalism is immoral because it allows exploitation and it threats the worker as a tool, rather than an individual with a responsibility.

There's a big difference between naming your cattle 305 and naming him "Jerry". Hopefully you get the nuance.

They're coerced into working there due to the
conditions the economy is forcing them in.

Once you can say "In order to live...I must x", and the cause of that "I must" is an economic condition, then it becomes coercive.

Coercion isn't inherently bad, however, certain versions of it are worse than others.

There is a bad side to capitalism.

And its when people like J.P Morgon take Teslas ideas of AC Current and Abundant Energy and they slap a meter on it and charge for its usage.

We can easily prove Capitalism just as much an enemy as Communism as we look upon our society's today as the prime example.

And be overrun by the work of machines, export and cheap labor?

You'd be surprised.

>Capitalism is immoral because it allows exploitation and it threats the worker as a tool, rather than an individual with a responsibility.
A fucking (marxist) leaf

How does it allow exploitation, if the employee feels that it's his salary is unfair then he can ask for more or make his own business.

And would you say nature is coercive then? We are forced by nature to gather food rather than it being handed to us cooked and ready. Breathing is coercive by your definition too.

Scarcity is Valuable to them. But there is no such thing as Scarcity of Energy in the Universe.

Kill yourself commie moralfag

Yes and the population is better off in a capitalistic system where they can achieve and prosper. Socialist systems have some good ideas but to argue people live better there than they do in capitalistic countries is laughable. Instead of being exploited by a big bad corporation you're being exploited by a government with a gun pointed at your head.

>he opposes Capitalism therefore he's a Communist

I wonder who put that false dichotomy into your heads? A hooked nose capitalist globalist merchant perhaps?

Stripping people of their property rights (theft) is immoral.

Valuing money over people might might you a jerk but at least you aren't violating anyone's property rights,

>he can ask for more or make his own business
"if you don't like your country, just vote or go build your own country"

Nature is coercive indeed. I'll repeat it again...not all forms of coercion are immoral.

>partout où l'intérêt économique prédomine, le Juif se montre et parvient à accéder rapidement aux postes de commande. Le Juif Disraeli et la construction de l'empire des marchands - Julius Evola
>partout où l'intérêt économique prédomine, le Juif se montre et parvient à accéder rapidement aux postes de commande. Le Juif Disraeli et la construction de l'empire des marchands - Julius Evola

why does anyone reply to leafs? Lol

wherever economic interests predominate, the Jew rapidly rises and accedes to the commanding positions.

There's one major flaw with your point.

You're assuming that property right is an inherent state. What if I told you that property rights are granted to you by the state to begin with?

You're making it seem as though the right to property isn't the byproduct of the system's interests.

The State has a monopoly, by its nature its different from a private company. And again, how it is exploitative if the employee is free?

What makes a coercion good or evil?

“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

Capitalism intends to have individuals pursue their own self interest, which results in the wealth and well being of everyone under the system.

Socialism intends to provide wealth and well being to its people, but results in the suffering, greed, and depravity of everyone under the system.

Forget intentions, focus on results. That's why capitalism is the most moral economic system in existence

Property states are guaranteed by the state, not granted, in a stateless society you can defend your property, therefore there is no need for a state to enforce property rights.

Disraeli the Jew and the Empire of the Shopkeepers

What is it that you call property? Who says that whatever you think you possess is actually yours?

Property doesn't exist outside of the state.

You need a 100% inheritance to ensure that no oligarchical families formulate in a capitalistic families. This is why you have powerful elite families controlling every capitalist nation.

100% inheritance tax also ensures that everyone gets the same start. Only through merit shall one succeed.

>in a capitalistic families
in a capitalist society.

Capitalism's results is the well being of everyone under the system? When?

>What is it that you call property?
Things that I own.

>Who says that whatever you think you possess is actually yours?
Me and the people to gave them to me or from whom I bought them.

>Property doesn't exist outside of the state.
Animals do have property, otters use rocks to break shells and eat sea food, some even keep the same rock for a lifetime, they defend and keep their rock, yet they have no state.

That's not really needed, you don't need to steal wealth to make sure it doesn't aggregate in the same place, look at Blackberry, according to your model they should only ever grow but people (and companies) make bad decisions, make mistakes and loose their wealth without state intervention.

Shadilay

Who says that you "own" them, other than legal definitions mandated by the state?

No one "owns" anything in a stateless world. "Own" is a legal definition.

I say that I own them. I don't need to state to also say he owns it. And why do you reject my claim of ownership?

...

Well, BAD Capitalism can be immoral, same as BAD Communism, or BAD Buddhism, BAD Christianity, etc.
Please be specific.

>should only ever grow but people (and companies) make bad decisions

Yes and what if they don't make mistakes? Also, I should stress that the concern is not with companies but with FAMILIES. Families that grow and prosper look out only for themselves and quickly try to manipulate the system to their advantage. There are plenty of examples of this throughout history.

It may be harsh....but a 100% inheritance tax is needed unfortunately to destroy the cycle and change the mentality surrounding capital in your society.

...

...

>gibsmedat

the ultimate degeneracy

kys

Capitalism has nothing whatsoever to do with *how* a person allocates their own time and resources you.
It only has to do with them doing so without the state violently taking from them their time and resources.
Dipshit.

...

...

>Yes and what if they don't make mistakes?
If they haven't made any mistakes then how do they not merit their wealth? That would go against a meritocracy to take away wealth that was deserved.

Also the best way to make sure people don't rig the system wouldn't be to reform the system but to make sure there's no system to be rigged. In a free market the only way they gain wealth is by providing good service and product to people who are willing to pay for it. It is only when the state intervenes in the market that wealth can be rigged.

Local free markets are nice but when you get to the scale we're operating at today international economic interactions are anything but capitalistic
Governments will always get involved when so many people and national resources are being manipulated, but they've ended up getting involved for the benefit of corporate profit which is not translating to citizen profit

When the open is a dumb ass who doesn't know how the world works

>If they haven't made any mistakes then how do they not merit their wealth? That would go against a meritocracy to take away wealth that was deserved.

Have the children of the ones who acquired their wealth earned merit by simply being born? You misunderstood what I was saying. Any given individual should be free to acquire as much wealth as he / she chooses. However, a new-born has not earned any merit and must do so on their own much like their parents did otherwise you end up exactly where we are today with a society controlled by Oligarchical families.

So in other words the parents can keep their earned wealth, but what about the kids? They can't spend that money on their kids? How would that work. Do you separate the kids from the parents? Do you meddle in the parents' finances and force them to not spend on certain things?

If its so immoral then move, faggot. Go to Venezuela or some shit

That's false though.

Would you kill a loved one for a billion dollars? Or maybe a pet? What about a trillion dollars?

Capitalism converts social values into monetary values just by existing. It's capitalist incentive to thus devalue society in an effort to make profit off of things like shock value in comedy, pornography, violent video games, etc. A lot of libertarians will say things like "The free market will create rating systems to aid customers into making the "Right" choice. But as we all know, the morals eventually get looser, because shows like South Park try to dig up that niche market of controversy and shock. Nothing is sacred in capitalism.

But you can also see its effect in communism. Marxists also question the values of society. They'll question religion and disparage it as an "opiate of the masses", or morality as a badge of stupidity and docility; they disparage every social institution with a question of "Is this institution oppressing me or allowing oppression?". It wants to supercede its value of "Oppression" over social values, just like capital does.

get over it poorfag, capitalism weeds out the weak so only the strong can thrive

No it doesn't. Values are set by people. People set whatever values they want.
Capitalism says absolutely *nothing* about which values you do or don't ascribe to things.
All capitalism is is a state of affairs in which people *do* ascribe their own values to things, and in which they choose how to pursue those values themselves rather than government goons stealing their money and mandating what's valuable and what's not.

You're missing the point. I don't even think you read anything..

Consider Mochi.. It's considered "the food of the gods" in Japan. There may be a ritual to preparing it to honour the gods, or maybe there's a ritual to eating it. Whatever value or ritual there is, it's been muted by capitalism.
Mochi is factory produced over there, sold cheap, and has lead to its devaluation as a spiritual food.

Capitalism is DIRECTLY responsible for the devaluation of our social institutions...

>Whatever value or ritual there is, it's been muted by capitalism
Capitalism doesn't *do* anything. Capitalism is literally a state of affairs in which people are doing what they want with their own time and resources instead of the state taking from them and deciding what's done with those people's time and resources.
That's literally it. Capitalism doesn't *DO* anything.

How's middle school?

I just proved you fucking wrong though.. You're just sitting there saying "Capitalism dindu nuffin".

Read the definiton of capitalism..
Private ownership
No state interference

If anything, there has never been a capitalist country, because every single "Capitalist" country always protects the private businesses. That state-controlled protection of capitalism is what we are a product of right now.

The reason I don't like the idea of capitalism is because not every thing ought to be privatized.

Property can be defended by the individual or by private companies, ergo it doesn't need a state.

Heavily regulated like sex trafficking and illegal drugs, or heavily regulated like the predatory housing market and the pharmaceutical industry?

capitalism is the legalization of usury as E Michael Jones explains so perfectly

That being said

Christian limits need to be placed on the economy

I don't know if thats what socialism is but the ideal system might be a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism

>MUH GIBS
Wow would you look at those freely associating families and businessmen forming and investing in strong bonds as well as developing marketable skills and choosing to hire and choosing to work and choosing to sell and choosing to make promises and contracts. That's what's wrong with society. You're right we need to forcefully try your method of taking hard earned wealth and giving it to those who produce little to no wealth. It's not like that's been tried before and failed every single time.

>Private ownership
>No state interference
That's *EXACTLY* how I'm saying it is dipshit.

This. Capitalism is value-free.

Socialists and protectionists need to get their hands off their dicks and learn economics.

That's why Anarcho capitalists exist.. because they advocate for a privatized military that self-regulates.

But it's never sustainable. Anytime a capitalist society comes to be, it's always taken over by a state entity or corporation (which becomes a state). Hudson Bay Company pretty much was the original Canada.

>Hudson Bay Company pretty much was the original Canada.

Don't even know your country's history. La Compagnie des Cents Associés was the first crown corporation. As to your comment, both them and the Hudson Bay Company had the backing of the state to create a state, so it's not really capitalism. Also do you have any examples of ancap societies getting taken over by a state?

Every system is ultimately capitalist - Labour and resources directed by owners. The difference is whether the labour is taken by force, or exchanged for economic franchise. Now you can accomodate that system by mediating the ultimate upward draft of wealth with some keynesian redistribution, but trying to eliminate or subvert it with a differing economic philosophy is self-defeating - people will still become powerful, they will still be owners, their say in the direction of the society will still inevitably consolidate.

>that would result it similar levels of productivity.
Why does it have to though? 99% of the stuff being produced is superfluous bullshit.