Genuine question.
Why would anyone in the working class willingly support capitalism? Even from a short sighted perspective, it would seem directly disadvantages to you as a worker to support this ideology.
Not even baiting, I seriously don't understand this.
But what about American Dream™ of becoming one of the ruling class elite himself?
Because most human behavior favors immediate reward rather than delayed consequences.
Because i dont want see all the social constructions being destroyed by the communism
I wouldn't say that people who do not have any ambition of becoming rich support laizzes-faire.
Workers could see capitalism as better for the economy of their state, as well as even providing better conditions for them.
Without capitalism you wouldn't have a lot of the things we enjoy and love today, or so they want us to believe.
But that's the thing I don't understand about capitalism. In any moderately socialist society, you'd be immediately rewarded for the simply fact you're a worker. If anything, capitalism is the ideology that requires far-sight and long term planning if you're not already rich.
People are cucked and uneducated
That is exactly communism, the state gives you everything you need but leaves a totalitarian dictatorship to your children
Yeah but you'll be a millionaire someday, so there's no use complaining
No, that's just the exhibited policy by Marxist-Leninist states working toward communism.
I make $12/hr and can afford a (not that great) place to stay, endless entertainment, cheap alcohol, and a gourmet meal (by my pleb working class standards meaning a $12 burger) twice a month. People I know working minimum wage get all kinds of assistance to help them out.
Capitalism is pretty okay honestly and Marxists who fundamentally want to destroy all "inherently exploitative trade" (basically all trade) are insane autists.
Where do you get your information from?
Even Marx himself says that the working class will struggle in the beginning.
Many socialist countries saw no improvement till the late existence of their regimes
>communism/socialism is when the government does things
Maybe if the world started that way. But the aptitude of some people is organizing the labor of others to their own advantage. They pit workers against each other, who act on their own immediate self-interest, which further benefits the organizing class.
How do you mean? The first decade of Mao's term in power involved the greatest relief from abject poverty in human history.
Ever notice college campus communists are always the biggest consumer whores? Why is that?
Yet it wasn't until much later that the Chinese actually became significant.
Not to mention that their success was directly connected to the capitalistic Hong Kong
Those would be college Republicans
>Even from a short sighted perspective, it would seem directly disadvantages to you as a worker to support this ideology.
Well, it isn't. Working class people in capitalist societies are objectively better off.
People who work do not like paying taxes to support people like you, OP
hello friend, you seem to have made a bit of an error in your post
as Veeky Forums is staunchly an anti-communist board, we would like to remind you that you would be far better suited on reddit on tumblr
thank you!
the O N L Y answer. capitalism depends on a regime of organized stupidity.
I thought this until i got a job.
does it feel good to have to apologize for your boss robbing you by being grateful to afford a shitheap apartment and a burger?
[Europe] Working conditions have improved to the point where workers see no point in struggle.
[US] The myth of the self-made man and the red scare.
Under Deng China became a successful capitalistic society, but only because of the modernizing reforms of Mao that made such an economy possible
I don't care. I work and I get rewarded for my work to an adequate degree by my standards. Communists have nothing to offer me other than the destruction of all "exploitative trade" meaning all those small businesses and microbreweries I like will go the way of the dodo. No thanks.
>capitalism depends on a regime of organized stupidity
Then why can't you find any educated economists who oppose it?
Because economists seek to improve the capital of a society as a whole. A worker looking for his own self interest has much less to gain from a capitalist society.
>Economists seek to improve the overall capital
So what you're saying is that workers may want the society to be as good as it can be? That maybe workers aren't just bums yelling "gib me dat," regardless of their own crappy situation?
>[Europe] Working conditions have improved to the point where workers see no point in struggle.
You say this like you're disappointed with the fact that a place is prosperous bc it can't fulfill your dream anymore
> economists are all venture capitalists
Could you not make the same argument against socialism? Giving everyone higher wages and more stuff will make people happy in the short term, but it could have bad long term consequences.
That's assuming the capital will be evenly distributed across society which, as history has shown time and again, rarely actually happens. Your nation might get richer but you as a worker will never see a penny of those riches.
If someone actually thinks like this, he's noble but ultimately naive.
At its fundamental level, capitalism is simply respect for private property. Most people's criticisms of "capitalism" are actually criticisms of the government using taxes to support traditional institutions, perhaps better termed "conservative socialism", i.e. where the country's money and production is used to support the people already in power.
Free-market capitalism is not the same as this, and so I think most people's criticism of capitalism falls far short of the mark.
Because, while there are some good things about socialism, it is undeniable that many (if not most) supporters of socialism have interests that do not align with the working class. Why is it that the most adrent supporters of socialism are found in the middle and upper classes? And why do they always seem so interesting in undermining the dominant culture and nationality?
Most working class people might support some "social democratic" policies like higher wages, better hours, better healthcare, but at the same time they usually have rather conservative social values. They tend to be patriotic and like their countries and don't want to see their culture changed and their nationality undermined. And why should they? It's only human to prefer your culture over others. When they look at socialists, they get uncomfortable because socialists seem to want to change everything about society and culture.
Why? I honestly don't know. Orwell wrote about this in his book Road to Wigan Pier. Socialism's desire to transform the culture always puts them at odd with the working class.
>Your nation might get richer but you as a worker will never see a penny of those riches.
This is an objectively false claim. The working class in capitalist countries are much wealthier than in communist countries.
>muh culture
This is a shitty meme propagated by fascists. It doesn't matter. It's just another garbage needless addition to society to divide us further. It's the same type of crap that borders do.
Culture breeds division and eventually hatred and nationalism. The working class need to understand this
Because no other system has ever produced wealth, where "wealth" means everything from Coca Cola and washing machines and smartphones to yachts and Lamborghinis.
You are fucking insane.
Most people can't relate to your shitty way of thinking. Most human beings like their cultures and traditions and don't want to drastically change them. This is why socialism is always met with so much resistance, because socialists seem to want to destroy culture. It's not a "shitty meme", it's a fundamental part of human nature. Most people don't want higher wages if it means they'll have to give up their traditional way of life and see it increasingly demonized.
Some culture should be destroyed, to be honest. Civilization can't support gazzilion local traditions like hundreds overcomplicated languages like in Papua New Guinea.
What the fuck does that have to do with the subject of the thread?
Temporarily embarrassed millionaires like But such ignorance is only a recent phenomenon. The labour movement before was really something to behold
I don't think there was anything in that post indicating that he was a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, more like he's simply content with the current conditions of capitalism, do you marxist zealots even read posts or do you just fling as much shit at the wall that you can hoping something sticks? Isn't half of the discourse among neo Marxists about how conditions are too good in much of the first World preventing people from being enticed by revolution?
Christ you're all brainlets I swear.
>I don't understand the concept of temporarily embarrassed millionaire and yet I must post
Not that is it just about standard classcuckery, but also the delusion that one can make it as big as the elites. He seems to think that capitalism has gifted him these boons (the labour movement did) and will continue to do so.
>how conditions are too good in much of the first World preventing people from being enticed by revolution
Only on the back of social democracy (New Deal, Nordic Model, Rhineland Model) that swept through the West post-WW2. But since neoliberalism is making shit worse for everyone so who knows
>I can pay rent on $12/hr and waste the rest on booze and shitty food
>all my friends who work minimum wage get benefits
Not everybody lives in Alabama m8
>Rhineland Model
Whoops not this model
>People I know working minimum wage get all kinds of assistance to help them out.
>Assistance
That sounds distinctly not capitalist you know.
Socialism != Welfare capitalism
If we stick to marxism orthodoxy anyway.