How do we fix capitalism? How do we prevent ourselves from entering into a shallow consumerist dystopia?

SZECHUAN SAUCE RICK!

Give me all the capital and i'll create a paradise

So if capitalism sucks and every implementation of communism sucked, what other alternatives do we have?

None really. Social democracy, i.e. welfare capitalism, is the best form of government currently known. That is until we develop post-scarcity technologies like molecular assemblers and AI.

Acknowledge the private sector as the fourth branch of government and use the state apparatus to balance its national power with the legislative, judicial, local, and executive branches.

That is, devs need to nerf the private sector.

Develop self-control.

What is greed? Why is it bad?

I've never understood this argument. First, capitalism is based on property rights and legally binding contracts. These require police and courts, so capitalism does and cannot exist in pure anarchy.

Second, how do corporations come to "own everything?" They make money by selling products and services. Do those things magically disappear after the corporation makes a profit?

You make it sound like grocery store chain billionaire moguls go out and rob people of their money every week. In reality, people voluntarily go to stores to exchange money for the food they otherwise don't have. If a store raises their prices to insane levels, people won't just throw up their arms and starve. They'll find another way (which they're free to do) to get their food.

Take the grocery store example and apply it to everything in the economy. Money is only made when someone else in the market gets an equal value product.

Finally, regulations, which are sometimes necessary to protect property rights, are exactly what cause and enforce monopolies. They cause market distortions and raise the bar for entry.

>implying money can’t buy exemption from law
have you ever heard of corruption?

>Have you heard of the exact reason why people prefer free market solutions to regulations and unnecessary government involvement?

Yes.

/Thread

> In reality, people voluntarily go to stores to exchange money for the food they otherwise don't have. If a store raises their prices to insane levels, people won't just throw up their arms and starve. They'll find another way (which they're free to do) to get their food.

of course they’re free to buy elsewhere, but that takes extra effort esp if there is already a preexistent monopoly, and if you know anything about psychology, people will always choose the most convenient option (path of least strain) if they cannot see the long-term consequences. Corporations know this, which is why they can afford to sell food of lesser quality. With restrictions, that can be countered.

For example, have you heard how the big corporations such as Milka are selling the same product, yet their ingredients vary from country to country? A bar of Milka chocolate tastes differently in Eastern Europe (less healthy) than it does in Western Europe, even though both chocolate bars list the same ingredients on the etiquette. It’s a recent discovery, and some corporations will be forced to get rid of those differences. This is just one example of how capitalism hurts society.

Now, imagine if a big corporation with enough money is allowed to buy the most frequented media sites, newspapers, etc., so they can decide which news get out and which don’t. That’s how consolidation of power begins.

undo capitalism and create a patronage and imperialism system

>prevent ourselves
>Implying we aren't already there
Thanks consumerism!

Not who you're responding to but:

>First, capitalism is based on property rights and legally binding contracts. These require police and courts, so capitalism does and cannot exist in pure anarchy.
Maintaining social "order" has costs but there's different ways that can be covered. The rich will finance their own law enforcement if they have to and it will be to their benefit.

>Second, how do corporations come to "own everything?" They make money by selling products and services. Do those things magically disappear after the corporation makes a profit?
Corporate wealth always tends to be in a more liquid form. Most consumer goods tend to depreciate in value over time, that's why they're trying to get them off their hands quickly not hold on to them.
Most wealth today is held by corporations not individuals, notting surprising about that, because most business is conducted on a incorporated basis but that doesn't have to be the case. The real issue is corporations are immortal whereas individuals die but they have the legal rights of individuals along side other special privileges.

>Take the grocery store example and apply it to everything in the economy. Money is only made when someone else in the market gets an equal value product.
Most economic activity today is probably rent seeking in one form or another. The best way to get rich is just finding coy new ways to create new overhead costs for everyone not providing real goods/services. Most peoples income are going towards paying for debt servicing not buying goods.

>Finally, regulations, which are sometimes necessary to protect property rights, are exactly what cause and enforce monopolies. They cause market distortions and raise the bar for entry.
Barriers to entry will be enforced one way or another because economic sabotage is profitable. The government can do it with altruistic intent for public safety and it might work or not but the private sector can find ways to do it to.
Also no intellectual property rights and prices would obviously drop a lot quicker and peoples real purchasing power would increase but defenders of property will quickly drop "natural rights" and tend to justify it on a utilitarian basis [e.g. no one will ever take the risk to innovate], totally inconsistent.

Why does it need fixing? Hundreds of millions are living in the lap of luxury today. Tens of millions are working in jobs they enjoy. Billions of hours of entertainment are experienced monthly. Workers have tons of holiday time, get paid overtime, and usually don't have to work more than 8 hours a day where in the past you'd work a lot more and also a lot harder doing physical labor. These comforting conditions are a lot more widespread than they used to be.

>shallow consumerist dystopia
Oh, you're a special snowflake anti-consumerist. Carry on then.

>muh special snowflakes
Not an argument.

Capitalism was a necessary phase. We need to end it once and for all via total revolution, but we are losing. It can't be fixed.

>Not an argument.
The rest of my post is one, though.

Sounds like you think people shouldn't be free.

"The path of least strain" has a value that people consider when deciding where to purchase.

In your other examples, you make it sound like there's only one chocolate bar or one news source or that anybody has to use either. In reality, it sounds like what's happening is that you don't like those companies and you'd prefer it if someone (government) would force people not to choose those things. You think you know better than they do what they should choose. That's the sort of thing that free market people find abhorrent, but hey, lots of people liked Stalin, too.

>capitalism only exists in my first-world country
>everyone enjoys their jobs
>tons of hours of vapid television to watch is good

>implying I care or even should care about third worlders
Take responsibility and deal with your own shit. Over here it's working gloriously.

>everyone enjoys their jobs
Not everyone, but many. You will never have a society where everyone enjoys their jobs. Such a paradise is a fantasy incongruent with the realities of human nature.

>tons of hours of vapid television to watch is good
Recreational time is vapid to the vapid.

Well, eliminating corruption in government is a good start. This could be accomplished by doing a better job of educating the public about real issues and trying to encourage more civic engagement in politics. To do this, academics need to stop being spineless and mediocre and need to get out there in the world and debate people.

Please explain how consumerism isn't bad.

having and wanting nice things is harmless. Being ruthless in convincing people that they needs things and in turn those people being ruthless to obtain those things being ruthlessly marketed to them is bad

People want things. Supply them with the things they want and get paid for it.

HOLY SHIT THIS IS IMMORAL AF CAPITALISTS SHOULD BURN

is communism pretty much the same thing as buying a new car because of a flat tire?

Considering that none of the good would exist without the third world, yeah you probably should. This is especially true when a lot of the awful situations that the third world is put into is caused by first world countries.

But yeah go on talking about how great it is that we can watch Rick and Morty as if its the highest societal good.

Yes but the wait time will be 10 years for that car

>Maintaining social "order" has costs but there's different ways that can be covered. The rich will finance their own law enforcement if they have to and it will be to their benefit.

Right, but a society where people buy their own laws and enforcement is anarchy, which I'm saying is inconsistent with capitalism, which requires rules.

>Corporate wealth always tends to be in a more liquid form. Most consumer goods tend to depreciate in value over time, that's why they're trying to get them off their hands quickly not hold on to them.

Ok, but people still need those things. Food spoils and rapidly depreciates in value. That's why you should be even happier that grocers can sell it to you in time

>Most wealth today is held by corporations not individuals, notting surprising about that, because most business is conducted on a incorporated basis but that doesn't have to be the case. The real issue is corporations are immortal whereas individuals die but they have the legal rights of individuals along side other special privileges.

Most corporations that have ever existed no longer exist. They are far from immortal. Also, much of that corporate money is in the hands of individuals and bank, both of which reinvest that money into the economy. Also, wealth inequality is irrelevant. Those same huge corporations have helped cut extreme poverty in half in the last few decades because they were the only people who brought money and business to the poorest places on Earth.

>Most economic activity today is probably rent seeking in one form or another. The best way to get rich is just finding coy new ways to create new overhead costs for everyone not providing real goods/services. Most peoples income are going towards paying for debt servicing not buying goods.

The only rent seekers are the government and people protected by government cronies. Everyone else has to provide something that people are willing to pay for.

>Barriers to entry will be enforced one way or another because economic sabotage is profitable. The government can do it with altruistic intent for public safety and it might work or not but the private sector can find ways to do it to.

Their best intentions typically have unfavorable consequences. The track record here is abysmal.

>Also no intellectual property rights and prices would obviously drop a lot quicker and peoples real purchasing power would increase but defenders of property will quickly drop "natural rights" and tend to justify it on a utilitarian basis [e.g. no one will ever take the risk to innovate], totally inconsistent.

I don't see why intellectual property is inconsistent with the free market. It's just a different form of a contract that needs to be enforced.

>Considering that none of the good would exist without the third world
Or the first.

nice reply that has nothing to do with previous post

Capitalism and free trade have cut world extreme poverty levels in half in the last few decades. The also are exactly what lifted the first world out of extreme poverty in the first place. Even Marc agreed with the second point.

It has plenty to do with it since you're a slave moralist. Third worlders produce the goods for the first world, but the ones who employ or force others to produce are stronger and thus the more productive of the two.

Social democracy is a ponzi scheme which turns people into lazy apathetic consumers, and which will collapse with the eventual demographic onslaughts of the dumber but more virile third worlders.

"free" is a big word and you’d have to define it better. In some areas people and corporations deserve less freedom if the public health and natural environment are at stake.
The majority of people, as individuals, are pre-occupied to think consciously about the food quality, that’s why a bigger entity is needed to protect their health and (save up on their time). Kind of like how breathing is usually regulated by autonomic nervous system so you don’t have to think about it all the time.

A corporation that creates monopoly usually works on driving out the competition and preventing it from coming back.

In the last paragraph I think you missed the point. Corporations are deceiving the consumers to save up on money (and increasing profit) by selling products of lesser quality, even though it says on the etiquette they’re of higher quality. It’s not just chocolates. There are numerous corporations that do that.

...

That's like asking "how do we fix syphilis?"

you seem like a guy that measures success only in terms of economic growth and neglects every other aspect of life.

This leftypol infographic is hilarious considering Keynesian policies were most implemented in the UK, which had by far the worst post-war growth out of any western country.

Buy used books

>prevent
we are already there and its irreversible

>I don't see why intellectual property is inconsistent with the free market. It's just a different form of a contract that needs to be enforced.

A contract exists between two people and obviously ideas are indefinitely duplicable, that's the "problem", once you give it to someone they can break the contract and let it lose. You can hold them liable but once its let lose you haven't made a contract with everyone else.

>Capitalism and free trade have cut world extreme poverty levels in half in the last few decades.

Solely because of the rise of China. One of the most regulated economies in the world with the most government control. The EU doesn't even acknowledge it as a market economy.

You couldn't be more wrong. I believe that the same freedom that generates culture and art and let's people keep their own family values is what generates economic growth. I think it's impossible to divide up that freedom into economic and other categories.

For what's it's worth, I place very little value in a person's economic success

>Capitalism and free trade have cut world extreme poverty levels in half in the last few decades

Im assuming you are talking about private charities as your post is similar to . The problem is that you are not looking at bad effects of capitalism that directly create poverty. Just because charities exist doesnt mean that capitalism (especially free market ones) are actually efficient at aiding third world countries.

>slave moralist
>might is right
babby finds his first philosophy

No state has really formally followed the guidance of Keynes on fiscal/monetary policy, politics makes it impossible. China, post-Mao, is the closest to operating on "Keynesian" lines I suppose.

>implying keynesian economics is leftypol
wew

>acknowledgement that the one that holds power makes the laws is "babby's first philosophy"
So the oldest and truest philosophy in the world is babby's first philosophy?

I mean I think people should be free to choose what's best for themselves (while necessarily respecting the life and property of others). They don't need anything to protect them from the consequences of their choices.

I think you may have missed the point, actually. You're presuming that people are being deceived. You think that if they knew what you did, they'd choose something else. It might just be the case that people want those things. That's why they choose to use them, and they choose those providers over competitors.

To be even more clear, how do you know you are beyond this deception? What gives your worldview priority over theirs?

Which book is this?

No, I'm talking about businesses that open up shops in those places. Sweat shops sound awful, and they are, but the alternative was to leave those people to die like they were. Charity is great, but has a worse record than businesses expanding and opening up trade and I'm migration between countries.

Take Singapore as one of many examples.

So what were you trying to say with .
Because really it had nothing to do with what I said.

I was talking about why you should care about the third world. This comment makes no sense in context unless you are just trying to get mad for the sake of being mad. I mean I get im a slave moralist or a cuck or whatever, but what are you actually trying to say here?

>greed has no boundaries
As seen in the leadership of communist countries

Again you are assuming that the alternative is always to just let die rather than asking how they can be better helped. This is missing the point of criticism of capitalism in the first place.

My point was that your statement was very one-sided and not at all convincing. It's not even true that none of it would exist without the third world. Slaves are far more replaceable than their masters.

The definition of the third world might as well be synonymous with slavery and poverty, so your statement makes no sense. Without slaves, there are no masters.

Also this master/slave rhetoric you are using is really cringey, makes you sound pseud as fuck.

it’s the law that ingredients listed on the etiquette should match the actual ingredients of the product.

nobody is promoting communism here, just a capitalist system with a few socialist elements.

>Without slaves, there are no masters.
But slaves are more replaceable than their masters like I said. The value of the two is not equal.

Again this has literally nothing to do with what I said earlier.

People have literally been questioning this whole power dynamic for at least a century now and your whole argument is 'your wrong'.

The argument that capitalism has cut poverty is religious dogma. Capitalism created poverty. Debt is poverty, not the lack of consumerist goods. Instead of killing poverty, capitalism systemized it, reinvented its meaning and subjugated every individual to its will.

But it does though. You initially said that because you were trying to convince me that the first world should care about the third, since the third world manufactures the goods that make the luxurious life for the first.

But that IS wrong. Manufacturers in the third world are replaceable. The money is coming from us. Whoever holds the money in an agreement ultimately wields more power in it, except when you're a shitty businessman. In the same sense, it is ultimately the first world that is producing the goods, not the sweatshop workers in the third world countries. We are giving the jobs to them, not the other way around. You could fight back if you wanted to. You would be annihilated, so you chose not to, but that was still your decision.

This is related because the anti-capitalist attitude is rooted deeply in slave morality. Fixing? Please, an incredible amount of beauty and quality is generated by the first world today, practically all of it. The first world adopted capitalism because it was the most efficient system, and so far continues to be. If an alternative comes along that is more efficient, I'd have no problem supporting it, but I don't see an example of any such alternative yet. No socialism or communism has generated the same quality fruits as capitalism has yet.

>rooted deeply in ressentiment.
What I meant.

Debating capitalism, or communism or any political ideology, on political ground is counterproductive and imbecile. The real debate is ontological. What the far left understands better than capitalists, is the decadence of western civilization, but their precise intuitive analysis of the problem is set back the instant they go back to political discourse as a mean to an end.

not the one you’re replying to but

>You would be annihilated, so you chose not to, but that was still your decision.
>do as i say or die
real choice there

Your definition of poverty removes all of its inherent ills.

Still a choice.

>But that IS wrong. Manufacturers in the third world are replaceable.
Well I can see this conversation will be going nowhere as you want to assert the same thing over and over again even though it has nothing to do with caring about third worlders.

>an incredible amount of beauty and quality is generated by the first world today, practically all of it
What beauty are you actually talking about though? Is it the great fidget spinner? Were the works of Socrates the result of capitalism?
Is any of this really meaningful when the majority of the world cannot benefit from it?

Your usage of the term slave morality is really tiring. Do you actually know what that term means or did you just look up Nietzsche on wikipedia and assume it means whatever you would like?

> because it was the most efficient system, and so far continues to be
only the most efficient in terms of innovation and growth.
As for societal well-being, it’s far from perfect. We can get to the next phase without such rush

Nope, charity can exist in capitalism. Both charity and business/trade have been tried, and business/trade has done for more to sustainably better the world.

Workers need to make a stand

No, debt is debt. Nations, corporations, and wealthy individuals all have varying amounts of debt and often done advantageously. It's wise to take on debt for a house to build equity, especially in a region with appreciating prices. A business leveraging itself with debt is wise if it can use those funds to grow more than the interest rate.

Though I have the impression by debt you mean people taking out student loans for dumb degrees and buying shit they can't afford on credit.

You guys perfectly demonstrates the dichotomy between both sides. One is human, compassionate, and worries about individual and societal well being . The other is completely autistic. They don't give a shit about well-being, actually they don't understand it. The only thing that makes sense in their mind is economic growth, ''progress'', and other statistical and sterile mathematical concepts.

>Is it the great fidget spinner?
lol. Well I just attended a festival of sorts along with over a hundred thousand others, one that celebrates an immense amount of creativity generated by capitalism, called Comic Con. Lots of enjoyable and beautiful stuff to check out there, as well as some fun people to meet. There are festivals like this that happen monthly all year round all across the US alone.

>Is any of this really meaningful when the majority of the world cannot benefit from it?
Nope. That's why we should throw it all away. Burn ALL of the world's libraries too, we shouldn't have literature in a world where some people still don't know how to read, right? Why are we even using the internet when some people don't have access still? Why get up in the morning when there are cripples who literally can't? This shit is all pointless.

>one that celebrates an immense amount of creativity generated by capitalism, called Comic Con
So your idea of "creativity" is a bunch of fat man-children lining up to buy cheap plastic merchandise with the Batman logo printed on it? Interesting.

Basically if we could go back in time and stopped the Industrial Revolution from happening pretty much everything would be solved. It was a fucking can of worms

>we
fuck you and fuck larger society care about your friends and family.
reality is there is no system worth considering that is going to drastically change our day to day lives. any imagined significant influence of the political sphere on your actual life probably comes from autism. if you really care about politics get involved locally, don't shitpost on the internet thinking you're anything but a fucking loser. not saying that revolution isn't possible, it's just that if there is one it probably won't achieve the intended results.

There is nothing wrong with capitalism unless you are lazy. The smart people and hard workers deserve the money they earn.

You aren't this retarded, I hope.

Not him, but you only need to look at the past century of music, movies, books, tv shows, etc. which were incentivized by profit through intellectual property. Or the wide array of contemporary art being produced and sold for ridiculous money.

EVERY SINGLE CRITICISM OF CAPITALISM BTFO

>Comic Con
actually laughed at this thanks man

>implying I wish for all art to be destroyed
Again I never said this or even really implied it. Rather, I suggested that it is not as important as caring for other people.

Also, why do you assume things like Comic Con could not be accomplished in a socialist society (for example)? One thing you missed that I stated before was the Socrates example. Socrates never worked for profit, he barely even worked for a meal. Yet he is one of the most important philosophers of all time. He was clearly not the result of the first world or capitalism. Why would this be inherently impossible to achieve with a less free market?

If you really believe that Comic Con is the highest good of society, good for you. Everyone else will be out here caring about other people and trying to make life better for one another while you try to escape it.

The hardest workers I've known have all been lower classes. The laziest, most depressed, untalented ones were all millionaires. There are also lazy and hard working people among every classes, but don't buy into this lie.

Capitalism works because of an exploited class of workers. Maybe one out of a million will ever ascend the economic ladder. It's simple mathematics. Workers cannot become richer than they are, or there would be no more workers. Which means no profit to be made, so no capitalism.

Honestly you sound young and naive. Most capitalist apologists I know agree with what I said, except they're either sociopaths are egoists (Self proclaimed).

Those who defend capitalism on the premise that the last century has seen huge amounts of 'art' flourish are simply philistines. Lmao. Comic con. Why do you guy even browse Veeky Forums

Most capitalist societies subsidize food and housing for the poor. If your needs and wants are that limited you could easily write philosophy all day in a capitalist society, as we can already see with the deluge of shitty bloggers.

Get off my board commie.

>Most capitalist societies subsidize food and housing for the poor.
Which is preformed by the government and thus at odds with free-market capitalism.

I mentioned Socrates as a demonstration that people can create incredibly important works without the need for capital gain. Thus, why is it so hard to believe that people couldnt create a fun comics convention in a less free market society?

As usual, fpbp.

>actually laughed at this thanks man
No problem, you uncultured swine. ;)

>it is not as important as caring for other people
RED ALERT - SLAVE MORALIST IN ACTION!

>Also, why do you assume things like Comic Con could not be accomplished in a socialist society (for example)?
It's not an assumption. It has not happened in countries buried deep in socialism. The largest cultural powerhouse of the world today is not deeply socialist. There are no assumptions here, only observations.

Socrates is a philosopher, it's a very different thing. Ancient Greece was also democratic. He was a product of democracy.

>If you really believe that Comic Con is the highest good of society, good for you.
I don't, that's just silly. But it's an example of a place that has a colossal amount of creativity generated by capitalism. And the highest good is indeed the creation of great men and great art, not to sympathize with lower men and mentally stunt ourselves in the process.