Any argument in favour of capitali$m, Sup Forums ?

Any argument in favour of capitali$m, Sup Forums ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
goodreads.com/author/quotes/432.Ayn_Rand
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

No.

But capitalist elements are good, which National Socialism does perfectly.

Wasn't Hitler fiercely anti-capitalistic, despite hating any form of Marxism ?

>that image
What is it supposed to convey? That you're scared to die and too lazy to work for what you buy and consume?

The artist should show the Communist/Socialist version with just the 1st and last panels.

>Wasn't Hitler fiercely anti-capitalistic, despite hating any form of Marxism ?
So was Mussolini, but both used capitalism to maintain power.

>This.
Capitalism (without cronyism) is the most moral way to go, because it is entirely based on voluntary transactions between those involved.
>Don't want thing? Don't buy thing.
>Don't like current work? Find an alternative.

The problems arise when you ask the following questions:

>What about the people who (for reasons other than General Laziness Disorder or Millennial Syndrome) can't work and earn enough to support themselves?
>How much (or little) regulation to the market is necessary to have as much equality of opportunity for everybody involved?
>Which role(s) should the Unions play (if any)?

None.

National Socialism must prevail.

Nice political compass, user.

Yes, Humans are driven by goals and competition.
Capitalism makes that, so humans are more eager to prospere. The only problem, is that we lose focus on each generation and we get more cozy. Creating the Nu-male phenomenon

No. Capitalism is the Jewish parasitic system of controlling trade between two non-Jewish entities so as to support the Jewish community.

Capitalism is cancer.

We need pure National socialism.

Err, you mean besides the fact is the only system proven to uplift millions from poverty?

Your pic is not technically the fault of the free market, but rather a combination of government fuckery that props up the dominance of megacorps as well as continuing centralization and globalization due to continued developments in communications and transportation.

Who's going to pay for all that?

Both Communist Russia and China have used it to keep their people from starving

Yes:
Society needs competition as a driving force, and when everything hinges on it people give it their all.

This only works if there is a basic net to allow everyone the basic conditions of becoming productive human beings however.
Shit like ghetto culture? Doesn't make productive human beings.
Leftist gibs culture? Doesn't make productive human beings.
Lacking basic services of basic infrastructure? Breeds the two above.

Daily reminder national socialism is just another cult-like marxist-branch of cock-gobbling imbecility.

Keep the national, cut the socialism.

How is your pic bad, though?
What, should we just not consume or die?
We all die, and we do it faster if we don't consume.
We work to buy, we buy to consume, we consume to put off death, and in our free time, we entertain ourselves.

It's exceedingly efficient at allocating resources to the things that people want. Thanks to Capitalism western nations have the highest standard of living in human history, the poorest among us still have enough money to buy so much food that poor working class people are actually quite overweight. Gadgets like smartphones, tablets, PCs, televisions have never been more affordable for such a vast amount of consumers.

We're all wealthy as fuck and basically live our lives in such a state of luxury that Kings and Queens a mere 200 years ago would be green with envy of even a middle class Joe earning 40k a year.

In short, capitalism is pretty fuckin good, for everyone. The only real alternatives that have been tried involve tilling soil for your Lords and standing in line for your daily allotment of soup and bread.

My life is pretty sweet I must admit

Well for one thing it's the only system that has consistently worked

I can't believe the level of retardation in this this thread

>Nazi german was a perfect capitalist system!!!

False. The government controlled all businesses and decided which should exist and only the government decided contracts.

It was a SOCIALIST system. Communism and Nazism are more closely related than any modern form of economy or government.

This.

Adding to that, you can't get rid of capitalism through any means; it's a natural effect of optimization. Even if we were given our daily rations and no form of money, all it takes is a single person to say "I'm going to save some of my bread, and then give it to Joe in exchange for him doing X for me. That would benefit me more than bread."

Boom, you now have capitalism occurring again because it's voluntary exchange which has just become more efficient than a standardized allocation system, like socialism.

Go fight more windmills, OP.

It works unlike you.

...

You're utilizing a product of capitalism to argue against its merits to others.

That you do not seem to recognize the irony of this is hilarious to me.

...

What is capitalism?

That capitalism fails to actualise the spiritual dimension of man.

>teenagers actually believe you wouldn't have to work, buy, consume, and die under any other government including anarchy

where did it all go wrong?

true capitalism is the only moral choice until all work is automated.

Something worth noting as well is that very few people seem to consider the supply side of the capitalist equation. That is, all that good stuff we love to consume, the thousands of different types of food, drink, all the media we consume, the different types of cars you can drive. All of it, comes from businesses trying to meet demand and create a profit.

Liberals who rage against capitalism in it's vaguest form never seem to ever consider that the primary incentive of capitalism, making profit, comes from finding something people want and giving it to them.

Weirdly the people who rail against capitalism the most tend to have a shitton of games in their steam libraries. How many of those games would exist if the developers didn't want to earn money from their creation? Zero.

Working a shit job sucks, and thats all most people ever consider. The flip side of it is that we are so inundated with goods and services we can purchase we tend to take it for granted and never consider that these things, everything we purchase, was also created from a capitalist system and wouldn't exist without it.

An existence of buying the state sanctioned vehicle and watching your state sanctioned 2 television channels with state sanctioned programming is the one the anti-capitalists want. Whether they realize it or not.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""worked""""""""""""""""""""""""

>not even 200 years of capitalism
>justfuckmyworldupfam.rar

>A socialist system
>But with private property

...

Own your own property

There is a non-zero chance to become filthy rich.

You are being alive shitposting here.

Is the only way of avoiding conflits by establishing private propriety. But of course your country wouldn't know, you have your heads too deep inside of democracy's fat ass.

Capitalism is the only reason we can support such a large population.

>everyone in the US is literally in the 1% of the wealthiest people globally
>dude capitalism sucks lmao

imagine if we didn't have the tentacles of government in there fucking everything up too, we'd all have flying cars and be half robot by now

Claudia Roth this isn't your safe space. Go play hunter gatherer society with your Waldorfschüler friends.

>200 years
>german "education"
This is why you will never be better than Austria

Your problem is you assume that a system predicated on exploiting the worklers is the only possible way to meet demand.

What about industrial democracy? This single question blows your entire fucking post out of the water. Not because your post is wrong - price is a better indicator of demand and utility than some Kafkaesque centrally planned economy - but because the question completely sidesteps your strawman argument.

Your archaic conceptualisation of socialism only reveals that you're merely engaging in soapboxing based on your not-more-than-thirty years of life experience and zero engagement with the literature.

Let's say there is some big companies, what prevents them from working together to lower the cost of labour, and then selling products cheaper than anyone who actually pays their workers, therefore anyone who pays their workers runs out of business and workers are forced to do shitty jobs. Is it still a "voluntary" transaction if the alternative is death via starvation.

The image represents lazy wagecucks that argue for marxism.

>What about industrial democracy?
Wow, more bureaucracy will surely make the system better! There's nothing stopping businesses from giving equity to employees right now, in fact plenty of start ups do just that to lure talent in lieu of high salaries.

Simply put there's nothing it can do better than basic capitalism and lot more points of failure. You can post up alternatives all day long, but there is one fact you can't deny and it blows EVERY argument you can make out of the water. Capitalism has resulted in the highest standard of living for more people than any other time in history. It's drastically lowered the amount of people in poverty, it's drastically lowered the amount of people who are starving, and no other system of allocating scarce resources has ever been as good for the general public, period.

So keep posting your pointless hypotheticals and I'll keep shooting them down and explaining why they're functionally worse than the current system. Deal?

>Capitalism
>With fiat money

Yeah, nah.

> I'm against having cheap products because of the workers
Well, too bad
>workers are forced to do shitty jobs
Or they could fill a demand for something that is really necessary in the market instead of keeping a job in something with no technological innovation.
> Is it still a "voluntary" transaction if the alternative is death via starvation.
Yes. There's only coercion if it's done by another individual. Dying of starvation is not coercitive, nature is not an individual, this is just how things are, you either work or die of inanition.

>exploiting workers

Cut the bullshit. You're arguing against the right to private enforceable contract. Back to my bread example, that was not an exploitation, but you still have someone working for another person in exchange for goods. It's common law agency and has existed for centuries. Capitalism is just a system predicated by this long acknowledged phenomenon.

>go read more, you're under 30

And yet you call others' arguments strawmen in the same breath.

>Is it still a "voluntary" transaction if the alternative is death via starvation?

The Three Laws of The Social Bargain:

1. The sum of collective action is greater than the sum of the individual labor that makes it up.

A. If you can lift 100kg and I can lift 100kg, we lift a total of 200kg, but are limited by 100kg work. Together we can do bigger more complex work.
B. Together we can be in two places at once.
C. Together we can finish time sensitive work.
Corr: This is a Physical Law.

2. The benefit or reward of collective action is distributed in a a zero-sum-game.
Corro: This is the Law of Conservation

3. When you manage so that you win the zero-sum-game of distributing the rewards, you reduce the overall benefit of the collective action.


This is the foundation for modern economics that combines Market and Labor Value theories in a way that exposes the rhetorical arguments in both.

It is not about slavery; it is about corruption and deception. The Elites of all ideologies exploit the zero-sum-game of the extra rewards collective action brings, but present their ideologies in a way the hides the difference between physical laws and agreements.

>le evil fiat
t. teenager

E Michael Jones

Thank me later

>there's nothing it can do better than basic capitalism
How about "not exploiting the workers"?

>There's nothing stopping businesses from giving equity to employees right now
What is the point of this line of argument? What do you hope to prove by it? If you're going to claim that giving equity to employees is a bad idea because it if it were a good idea people would be doing it then you've just murdered your own argument by pointing out that it's already happening because it is manifestly more suited for building employee commitment to the organisation, something that is vital considering labour is the biggest expense for organisations and costs associated with turnover are the highest labour-related expense. So why bring this up? Furthermore, even if you were right and people aren't doing this then that doesn't actually prove anything because of course bosses aren't going to give employees the company even if it were a better way of doing things.

This single sentence proves beyond any doubt that not only do you have no idea what you're talking about, you have no ability to form an argument or think critically about your own positions whatsoever.

>Capitalism has resulted in the highest standard of living for more people than any other time in history
Prove it.

Prove that it's the result solely of "capitalism" and not mere thrid-wave industrialisation. Prove it beyond any doubt. Bear in mind that "capitalism" isn't real and every single country has its own set of economic policy, all widely varying. Did you know that in Germany companies with more than 2000 employees have half of their board members elected by the workers - by law? Of course not. But you were seconds away from pointing to the German economic miracle as a triumph of capitalism, and triumph of West over East Germany as "proof". Germany is the least capitalist economy in Europe - and also the strongest. How's that for proof.

This is actually the reason having a minimum wage doesn't work. There's no incentive to create wage incentives for your workers, when it is required by law that you just pay them X/hour. Furthermore, if the minimum wage is too high, you have to deal with unemployment and higher prices.

Instead of just reading other people's work and making other people's arguments (badly) how about you actually DO some economics?

Your paradigm of individual negates the benefit of collective action and hides the exploitation of those who manage collective action in a way that benefits the manager at the expense of the collective.


see

>You're arguing against the right to private enforceable contract
It is already the law that you cannot contract to do something illegal in any country. The right to private enforceable contract is not unlimited. The claim that workers are being exploited requires no new philosophising about contracts, only a minor adjustment of law. Don't bother arguing from legalism, you're already wrong before you begin.

>Back to my bread example
I'm not going to respond to points you make in random posts. If you have an argument, argue it here. Argue it with reference to the arguments I make, and not just out of the blue because you feel the need to soapbox.

>And yet you call others' arguments strawmen in the same breath.
An ad hominem is not a strawman, and that wasn't even an ad hominem. An ad hominem is insult in lieu of argument - that was insult on top of argument.

And communism
>work
>work
>work
>die

And anarchism
>die

Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but it's the best one we have. I'm in no way one of those retarded Commies who thinks we should redistribute the wealth (the wealth they don't seem to realise is only in such an abundance because of capitalism), but it does have some major flaws in it.
The main one is how easy it becomes to hold a monopoly and through that control people so it shouldn't be any wonder that every time a company is bought out it's always by the same (((people))). You look at any website that gains popularity and it's immediately bought for more than its value (an offer you can't refuse) by a bigger (((website))) who then either shuts it down or changes it to such a degree it no longer resembles what it was. By doing that they own the market because nobody else can compete in it. Sure, you can start a new website, but then the same thing happens again and again. It would be interesting to see capitalism without (((people))) around just to see how much different it would be. The simple fact is you can't have true capitalism with Jews around and you most definitely can't have it when you have (((fiat money))). What we have, at best, is faux capitalism.

1)Makes shit done while both sides of the deal win

2)Advances technology

3)Improves health and quality of life

4)Makes people powerful because they were talented or lucky, not because they had "divine right" or took over by force

Capitalism results in competition between services resulting in lower priced and higher quality products, and acts of kindness to the public to promote your business (sales, charity, etc) which ultimately results in a higher standard of living

... The bread hypothetical was my argument, and you are still ignoring the fact the system is derived from agency and private contract common law. You're confused as to who you're talking to. Check the ID's.

And on the note of economics, you're merely naming the system of economics; you have yet to present anything beyond conclusory statements of "it's exploitative" without showing how private agreement has any inherently damaging criteria.

>Yes, Humans are driven by goals and competition.
>Capitalism makes that
exploits that*

And all communism does is remove the BMW from the equation
PROGRESS!

If no one produces anything, we all starve to death.

5) Provides the Jews with enough clean water to make their country go around, despite it being located in the middle of a fucking desert.

The poor of today have a better standard of living than the rich of yesteryear.

>more bureaucracy...

Bad management is just bad management.
It is not proof that one system works better than another; it is only proof that you can't keep your arguments strait.

1. 9 out of 10 businesses fail

2. Business is managed for profit, not social benefit of product.

Capital is a product and an end in itself. Socialism is too. Bureaucracy is too. Managing for profit or job security is not physically managing collective action to make a better product.

>Capitalism results in competition
True, but competition is not unique to capitalism. Simple Marxism is envisioned as worker-run co-operatives competing in a free market to sell their products.

Capitalism is in the structure of the firm, not the market. Talking about competition and supply and demand ignores the central conceit of socialism and communism, which is who owns the means of production. In capitalism the means of production are owned privately and the owner reaps the surplus value of the workers and sells it to profit himself. In communism/socialism workers own the means of production and enrich themselves with surplus value.

Capitalism is just 'what is'. This is not an argument for or against. It's just the knowledge that no matter what system is in place, you will still have to work to survive.

>What is the point of this line of argument?
I was pointing out the current system has the flexibility to have companies that are owned by the workers right now without it being mandated that all companies must function that way, i.e Industrial Democracy, so there is no actual benefit in adopting that model. You suggested it as an alternative, I was pointing out that we can gain all the benefits of that model right now without any of the drawbacks involved with disincentivising people to incorporate because they'll lose a portion of control over their business.

>Prove it.
You're just being retarded now. No I don't need to prove to you that the wealth enjoyed by western civilization is the result of capitalism anymore than I have to prove the Earth isn't flat. There's no point continuing this if you're not going to accept basic facts and the reality of the world we live in while simultaneously positing that your completely hypothetical economic systems would "like, be, totally waaaay better man" *takes a bong hit*

the problem is when the capitalists use marxism to strip you of your natural identity so that they will be able to reconstruct it as they wish and sell it back to you. this is how the globalist fascist use leftist marxists as their useful idiots.

youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

a few

goodreads.com/author/quotes/432.Ayn_Rand

>can't contract to do something illegal

Never even presented that argument, nor would I have agreed with it. Let's get back on topic. I have still yet to see an employment agreement that would be found legally "exploitative."

>not going to respond to the bread example

But if I'm so uneducated and wrong, it should be easy to address :^)

>not an ad hominem or strawman, just a personal insult

So you're just an ass on an anonymous board.

So what does that have to do with competition? How are they going to make a large profit if they equate it across themselves?

What are you going to do when you run out of someone else's money?

This...That's why I am a libertarian nationalist.

underrated

also the state socialist countries are in
they're all hopeless and cucked shitholes
just look at France

Workers can already own the means of production.

>gather capital from workers that want to start a collective partnership
>purchase assets to run whatever that business may be
>pay out dividends to the owners aka workers

There's nothing stopping workers from owning the means of production. Even further, you can purchase stocks RIGHT NOW to receive dividends as an owner.

>work buy consume die
Apart from a spiritual life, do you have any better idea? Go ahead I'm listening

>I was pointing out the current system has the flexibility to have companies that are owned by the workers right now without it being mandated that all companies must function that way
You miss the entire point of socialism/communism when you say this, which is worker ownership of the means of production. This is what I mean when I say you have no experience in the literature. Of course a mixed economy isn't acceptable to a communist because the mixed economy is just exploitation on a smaller scale.

>so there is no actual benefit in adopting that model
>we can gain all the benefits of that model right now
I don't know how to put this more simply for you:
"capitalism is inherently exploitative."

That is the basis for all socialist or communist thought. When you propose a mixed system you are simply being retarded because a mixed system is off the cards for the same reason that a system where you have the freedom to rape or not rape is off the cards.

>No I don't need to prove to you that the wealth enjoyed by western civilization is the result of capitalism anymore than I have to prove the Earth isn't flat.
"I'm right because I say I'm right."

>There's no point continuing this if you're not going to accept basic facts and the reality of the world we live in
Speaking of facts, why haven't you addressed the little factoid I dropped on you about Germany? Too inconvenient to your narrative? France and Germany have some of the strongest worker protection schemes in Europe, and also have the strongest economies on the continent. Oh no, is the "reality of the world we live in" not measuring up to what neo-liberal thinktank research parroted in Sup Forums infographics said it would?

You fail to engage with the philosophy or empicity of the argument. I don't even think you're wrong because you're yet to even make an argument.

Bingo. Which was my point. You can have a company owned by the workers RIGHT NOW, and some companies do use that model. It's not a huge surprise that the people taking the financial risk and putting up the capital to start the business generally don't want to cede control to the morons they employ to mop the floors though

Stop consuming you pieces of shit.

Stop buying stupid kike shit.

Save your money in a savings account.

And you didn't read my post.
All benefit of collective action is physical.
All distribution of the benefit of collective action is agreement.
Without the agreement, there is no participation in the physical.

I have shown you in an economic theory that states this a clearly as possible.

3. WHen you manage the system for profit or personal gain to win the zero-sum-game of the distribution of the reward, you reduce the PHYSICAL efficiency of the system,

Everyone loses when you manage the collective action for the goal that maximizes profit and personal gain over the best product you can make with the least resources.

You elevate capital from resource to metric.

This is what I am saying about capitalism. It is a greed based system of psychological manipulation and rhetorical presentation that, when you dissect what is going on, you see as detrimental to the very society THAT EMPOWERS ALL AGREEMENT!


Trump in power is a direct consequence to Neo-Liberalism and Capitalism,
NOT because of what his polices are - he has none other than himself - but because of what the status quo and Clinton have produced:

A society of greed, mistrust, exploitation, vitriol, disenfranchisement, and disrespect of the art of labor.

Capitalism is the enemy. It has grown from a tool to a purpose, and its purpose is decadent.

If you'd take the time to look at my posts, instead of just promoting your own, you might finally understand.

THE ALT-LEFT WILL RISE!
PROTECT THE WEAK AND TRAMPLE THE UNEDUCATED!
HAIL HOPE!
HAIL LOGIC!
HAIL SCIENCE!
EMBRACE PARADOX!
LOVE OR DESPAIR!

funny you mention that
in France, they even get a special status granting lots of tax cuts if they do that

often, when some business is so rotten by protests and unions (in French, unions are called "syndicats"- coincidence? of course not), there are talks of workers buying it back to run under that status

surprisingly, they pretty much never do end up doing that
far too much responsibility and work for those angry snowflakes
they're just niggeringly asking for moh moneyz, with less work: it really is all they want

Because Socialism will never work due to a human factors called greed

...

>Never even presented that argument, nor would I have agreed with it.
You claimed that I was arguing against the right to private enforceable contract. I am not arguing against that any more than literally every legal opinion ever written on the subject, which is that you cannot contract to do something illegal. Simply make exploitation of workers illegal. It requires no change - or argument - related to contract law.

>But if I'm so uneducated and wrong, it should be easy to address :^)
No.

>So you're just an ass on an anonymous board.
Yes.

>How are they going to make a large profit if they equate it across themselves?
...The same way all companies make profit. By selling things for more than they cost to produce. If your question is how are they going to acquire capital to expand it's very simple - the same way companies acquire capital now. They will expand to the most efficient size possible - because this will continue to increase the profit-per-worker that each worker "takes home" (co-ops will have their own constitutions governing remuneration, of course, but theroretically speaking) and then stop expanding. You then have the most efficient possible firm, just like in capitalism.

>but where do the new firms come from
Union investment will supplant private investment. Firms pay union dues back to their founding union, so unions found profitable firms to increase their own returns. Just like investment today.

>Workers can already own the means of production.
Yeah, and you can already not murder, but you not murdering doesn't stop the murders of other people. You critically misunderstand the conceit of communism/socialism, which is that capitalism itself is inherently wrong and needs to be stopped.

...

>"capitalism is inherently exploitative."
It's not and that little idea should be tipping you off about why socialist thought is complete and utter bullshit.

>hy haven't you addressed the little factoid I dropped on you about Germany
It was irrelevant and I wasn't going to bring it up anyway. The details of how the government regulates the market isn't really what I'm arguing here, I am for government regulation of course. Did you assume I am a libertarian? Because I am not. Just a person who can see socialism and communism for the intellectually bankrupt crock of shit it is.

How is that socialist paradise Venezuela going? Wow it sure seems like every example of socialism or communism being put into practice ends badly while the examples of capitalist countries we can see have ridiculous wealth.

Yet I need to sit here and listen to why you think capitalism is 'exploitative' while socialism is what is best for all of us. Fuck off.

>a human factors called greed
socialist run on greed just as much as capitalists

it's just that they use it as a reason to destroy others' wealth, while capitalists use it as a reason to create some more wealth of their own.

lol love it

What the fuck kind of fuck wants an economy that actualizes their spiritual dimension?

Capitalism is volunteerism, you fucking retards.

That means YOU CHOOSE where to work and what to buy and what to consume and the business owner CHOOSES who to hire and what to sell and for how much.

That's fucking capitalism.

If you can't figure out how to activate your fucking almonds, that is YOUR misfortune, not Capitalism's fault.

It's been here forever. Everything else was just a passing fad.

>It's not
Tip top argument, chap.

>It was irrelevant and I wasn't going to bring it up anyway.
"The real world shows that capitalism is the best!"
"But the strongest performing economies in Europe also have the strongest workers' rights laws and unions, not to mention the collapse in middle America"
"Those real world examples are irrelevant anyway!"

You are embarassing yourself. You can be better than this.

>How is that socialist paradise Venezuela going?
Poorly.

>Wow it sure seems like every example of socialism or communism being put into practice ends badly
Sure seems like every functional example of socialism or communism mysteriously becomes capitalism, like the "capitalist" German companies where workers elect their managers democratically or the "capitalist" regulations that constrain the private property rights of employers in the USA.

The real world is vastly more complicated than you think it is, and that's probably because from the comfy surrounds of your parent's house you've never actually had to venture into it.

You're confusing capitalism with modern day public school, and media run serfdom.

>You critically misunderstand the conceit of communism/socialism, which is that capitalism itself is inherently wrong and needs to be stopped.
We get it. You still havn't put forward even ONE viable alternative that would maintain the standard of living enjoyed in capitalist countries.

Ok we crush capitalism and make Lenin shed tears of joy in communist heaven. Now what? What do we replace it with that improves the quality of life for workers while simultaneously retaining the amount of choice we have when purchasing goods and services?

When you actually provide answers to those that aren't laughably naive (as all socialist ideas are) then we can start on the issue of whether it actually works in reality given human nature.

Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow, and all that. Choice is all well and good when we all have the same choices, but the options of a metalworker for where to send his children to school are a little different to ex-Goldman Sachs banker Malcom Turntbull's.

Yet worker owned companies are attacked by the banks and corporations constantly, and the system is set up to monetize the ether of ownership and production at the expense of product.

Profit should represent the extra gained by collective action over individual action, not the smoke of deception and rent.

The whole thing is a scam so that lazy corporate welfare elites don't have to get their hands dirty.

It is not set up to facilitate social gain, human health, or security.

incentive to invest to get a reward