Is capitalism bad?

For the better portion of society yes.

Living from wage to wage, below the poverty line, while trying to feed yourself and your family, isn't exactly a nice situation to live in.

You need to be more specific

yes. read some of the theory behind it and you realize how bastardized it has become - not even the all powerful 'invisible hand' can save it fro itself. a system based on infinite growth on a finite world will fail. crashes like that of the 2007-2008 housing market crash will continue to happen and wealth inequality will continue to grow. a system with a disappearing middle class but a rising precariat class is extremely dangerous.

Capitalism is a spook

I like how you consider all modern technology to be from the free-market system, when the machine you're typing on now was invented by the public sector.

I don't expect much thinking from fans of Mussolini though.

No, The problem is marxists stoping us from achieving super captialism to get rid of the current problems.

>Here's a tip user, if your ideology requires the resources and technology from a different ideology before it can even hope to succeed, you might want to reconsider your views.
Kind of like how captialism is worthless because it needed the technology from fuedalism to come into being?

This is the most retarded image I have ever seen, even if it's supposed to be bait.

>one piece of technology came from the government
>therefore the government should own EVERYTHING

Capitalism promotes slavery
Slavery is still present today...

**Conservatism projects invertedly/inversely- so everything it contends is usually backwards and wrongfully posted against others...

You can see it in things like Neoliberalism being conservative devices and inventions that serve monetary conservatism the most... or that Trickle Down really doesn't trickle down...

Slavery didn't end with the civil war- it just changed its shape to Capitalism...

In theory, neither Soc/Com use money or other capital devices as driving motivators to begin with, thus every supposedly "failed' Soc/Com has been a form of State Capitalism.

Soc/Com has never been the culprit- it's always been Capitalism and it's always posed as other things and blamed other constructs for it's design failures... Soc/Com require intelligence to operate and use it as currency-

Is why the Capital Establishment seeks a debased population... Slaves are too busy to think for themselves...

**The Capital Lie IS the Golden Cage...

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme that requires a slave base to operate...

Conservatism kills- is specifically designed for it...

Enter it's proxy device of Capitalism, true source of 1-200 million dead over 300 years and the largest mass extinction in 65 million years... , never any Liberal/Collectivist construct, but just one Conservative/Individualistic one that has always projected its individual nature over the collective...

**Just as all dictators and mass killers have been conservatives of their respective brandings for much the same reasons...

**There's no such thing as a "Conservative Christian" when Christ and the Bible are Liberal/Collectivist constructs...

in the effort to take the beast down- don't become what you decry- that's how it spreads...

It's godamm beautiful

the cure is not something that can't be bought or sold... You simply can't buy your way out of the scam of Capitalism...

There is a physics construct that reconciles conservatism to rest at it's source...

Speak up, for it is time to reclaim that which has been taken...

Evil is measurable, quantifiable, counterblast, and even reconcilable to rest at its source...

Some even know how to do so...

That is point yes.

>super-capitalism
>it's literally just syndicalism
10/10

Mussolini brought social security to Italy, improved the public education, improved the public infrastructure, and made the corporations work for the benefit of the state. Yet you don't like him.

Of course I wouldn't expect a socialist to be logically consistent.

Literally what the FUCK are you talking about? Do you want a punch to the mouth? If I see you shitpost like this again, there will be dire consequences.

>He made the trains run on time!

I don't see worker ownership of the means of production anywhere on that lists. What does any of those things have to do with socilalism again?

Forward to Fascism! It's the only proper response to the automation and replacement of human jobs.

wow great post. You should write a book user

>worker ownership
>implying that as long as there's a state the workers could possibly own the means of productions
>implying that the government doesn't become the new bourgeoisie under a socialist system.

We'll he did invade Africa in order to exploit the continent for resources. He teamed up with Hitler, the leader of a party whose socialist wing was notoriously murdered off by the nationalist wing.

This is the same Hitler who sold out his principles of putting the German working class first when he began working with I.G. Farben and Siemens immediately after taking power. The same Hitler who tried to wipe the peoples of eastern Europe off the earth because he considered them "subhuman".

If I write the book.. i'll be martyred for it... I'm not terribly interested in an early departure this time around. This time around, the intent is to ride the bully into the ground once and for all...

The Beast seeks a confrontation and it will get what it is seeking :-)

but then when hasn't the good guy had to sacrifice their individual self to save the collective?

I am forbidden per laws of universe to project myself, but if you help lend me voice, i know how to stop the cancer that is killing the US and the planet... If i do as you suggest, i will do so anonymously and with no reward sought our accepted. the best gifts in life have always truly been free...

**here's a bone for you-

End "Legal Immunity" for public servants and you'll end judicial corruption across the board- including police on minority killings...

Tell the people... the time is here...

End Legal Immunity for Public Servants.

...I'll get started on the book as so many have suggested and let me know when the people are ready to face off with the beast itself...

I am...

:-)

I was mocking you, and I should mock you a second time for having pictures of anime.

If Africans colonized Britain you would be saying capitalism was evil.

The good news is that socilaism doen't mandate a state or government at all and if the workers can't own their own means of production with a state you don't have to have a state.

Indeed. Truth is, the people are gonna need a lot more than just material goods as their jobs are replaced. They're gonna need purpose, a goal to strive for, which socialism, in all its materialistic tunnel vision, cannot give them. What purpose do you have when all your needs are met and you can contribute almost nothing to this world? The state will give you purpose. The state will refine you, turn you into a tool and a weapon, then find you work to progress the nation. Fascism is the future.

>complaining about anime images
>on an anime imageboard
When will you people learn?

Euphoric samefagging friendo

>a system based on a goal of infinite economic growth at the expense of human beings, under the assumption that it had infinite resources to do so,

That is not a remotely accurate description of capitalism.

>implying slavery is bad

It seems the model of capitalism is growth. I don't see how you could argue with that, good business revenues increase year after year.

Holy crap do all socialists have a martyr complex this big?

Care to clarify in a point by point concise manner that can be falsified? The standard political models and terms of today are written to deceive and what we are used to using today is not quite what I'm operating on...

The Universe itself is an un/ countably infinite binary collective tesseract.

Sorry cuck, Marx doesn't have a monopoly on socialism.

Capitalism is bad for people's and society that have a poor work ethic.

There is literally nothing wrong with the private ownership of the means of production.

I assume he was talking about the last 2 points. I don't think you can argue that the goal of capitalism isn't growth.
I don't agree that capitalism has to or does do it at the expense of human beings though.

>It seems the model of capitalism is growth

It does not depend on growth, nor "infinite resources," and if is not "at the expense of human beings." Certainly growth is always a goal since more wealth is better than less wealth, but it's not like capitalism ceases to exist if growth stops.

The main thing I don't understand is why communism/socialism? Why choose the ideology that has failed 49 times in a row, with a 0% success rate? You are better off making up your own ideology than you are trying to go with what's been proven a failure.

>Capitalism is bad for people's and society that have a poor work ethic

It's actually not. Capitalism provides opportunities for lazy fucks to get playstations, cheap cheeseburgers, and marijuana by working less hard than they would need to to even survive in a communist dystopia.

Wow, it's like technology advances as time goes on.

Pretty sure socialism is the next logical economic step

Growth is what keeps proles in line.

And the percentage of those people not in poverty who are in a socialist state is?

No, its never been tried before

This.

>It became apparent that a system based on a goal of infinite economic growth
If growth ground to a halt they would simply spend their dividends on luxuries instead of reinvesting them, human nature is inclined to do this. Capitalism bucks the trend because it favors individuals and businesses that reinvest their earnings because they grow and compose the majority of the economy and capital markets. That's all.

>the more third-world migrants will continue flooding the developed world and fucking their women
Seems like the opposite is happening, sometimes in more way than one.

[spoiler]efukt.com/21671_When_in_Thailand.html[/spoiler]

This.

Why don't I ever see any threads on St.Simonism, Fourierism, or Communalism?

wow, someone hates freedom

*Are capitalism bad

Holy shit you type like a fucking retard.

You have to go back.

...

It's good for a time but will inherently break itself. It's simply not sustainable.

>The Universe itself is an un/ countably infinite binary collective tesseract.
This is a clear example of you typing like a retard.

You're withdrawal is accepted. :-) Next time when you decry something, offer specific reasons instead of just subjective rhetoric...

>I think it's universally agreed upon by all sentient creatures that

I don't think capitalism is bad as long as there is a large degree of social mobility.

Late stage capitalism though is fucking cancerous.

That picture is hilarious. Houses have actual use. A better one would be the growth rate of stocks in wall street.

>Late stage capitalism

is a meme, not an actual thing

Is 2008 really that far away in peoples minds?

Unfortunately 2008 wasn't caused by "growth for the sake of growth" but over regulation of the banks, look at the community redevelopment act for proof on the issue. Banks were required to loan monies out to those with bad credit making subprime mortgages which were backed by FMN. This is where under regulation kicks in as FMN wasn't required to have the capital to back their own securities. And it started in 2007.

> It became apparent that a system based on a goal of infinite economic growth at the expense of human beings, under the assumption that it had infinite resources to do so, could no longer be sustained as more parts of the world became industrialized.

The only way lassiez-faire capitalism can create growth is by providing goods and services. This is not at the expense of other human beings, as it's their demand for these goods and services that's driving the growth.

You're also ignoring innovation, like most crypto-malthusians. One might think that an exploding human population might mean the end of forests, but people started mining coal, leading to bigger growth of forests. One might think we would be left without coal at a certain point, but innovation has brought about nuclear power which would be the dominant source of power in the world (and cheap as fuck) was it not for state meddling.

And that's just if we limit ourselves to Earth. The universe itself actually does have infinite resources.

a) Socialists neither promote state ownership nor equal wages.
b) Your description of "super-capitalism" is just socialism.

You are either retarded or an undercover socialist

How do you figure that? We've seen a whole socialist bloc rise up and collapse in less than 50 years, but the countries that got wealthy on capitalism are still up and running despite their descent into welfare states.

>offer specific reasons
blurp slurp flubble blibble splee wee hee, this proves you wrong

if you have no idea what I am talking about it is because you are too stupid :-)

explain and give specific reasons in your reply or I accept your admission of defeat, k go

Has women's rights caused the fall of capitalism?

In fairness, communism -- meaning the communism we actually got, not a theoretical ideal that we'll probably never see -- seems to do all right when it comes to rapidly educating and industrializing an underdeveloped society with a large population. The Soviet Union at its inception was a war-torn shithole with wrecked infrastructure and the much of the (illiterate) populace was living like literal medieval peasants. Fast forward a couple decades and under state oversight of the economy it had one of the largest economies in the world with a growth rate far exceeding that of most western nations.

Of course, once you've industrialized, educated your workforce and doubled your workforce participation rate, you're going to see that growth rate taper off, and once you're there it's better to transition gradually to a free market-based system.

That's bullshit, when it comes specifically to Russia, 3/4 of conscripts under the age of 20 in the Tsar's army in WWI were literate. The communists just increased the percentage by causing a shitstorm where a lot of old people died. Russia was also the fifth most industrialized nation on earth in 1914, their growth in the coming decades wasn't due to communism, but advancements in infrastructure technology (none of which were made in the USSR) making Russia's natural resources more useful than they were before. Stalin's industries were started up by western industrialists, especially the oil industry.

Yes, user. If only they appreciated you. Then maybe they wouldn't have caused the fall of capitalism.

Just saying there is correlation and causation.

Why chip in when you have no idea what you're talking about? The literacy rate vastly DROPPED after WWI and the Civil War, for the obvious reason that nobody was in school because the country was teetering on the brink of absolute collapse. By the mid-late thirties the literacy rate had more than doubled for men from its PREWAR levels -- to say nothing of the levels it reached after the War -- and the literacy rate for women had *quintupled.* By the 50s the figure for both was near 100%. This was the result of compulsory education and a massive fucking literacy campaign, the details of which are well-understood by historians both western and Russian. Claiming it's because "a lot of old people died" is honestly one of the stupider things I've read on Veeky Forums, which is ... impressive, really.

The Russian Empire was overwhelmingly rural; the urban population constituted about 15% of the country in 1914-17. The economy was, consequently, disproportionately agrarian relative to most of the other economies of Europe, with industrialization extremely concentrated in just a few areas, much of Central Asia completely undeveloped, many people unemployed and many farmers idle for most of the year. By 1950 the urban population stood at over 50%. I can't be assed to pull up outright industrial production / unemployment and workforce participation figures, but they're similar (and even more staggering for women, who essentially were introduced into the labor force in the Soviet Union).

Am I trying to suck the Soviet Union's dick? Absolutely not. A liberalizing Russian Empire probably could've achieved most of those gains too, with similar state oversight of the economy and less outright brutality. But that doesn't change the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about; you've created a fantasy of what the years 1920-1950 were like, unrooted in actual Russian history.

I think the end of capitalism as we see it today is inevitable as automation continues to rise. However, people automatically assume socialism is the answer, when that is just not true. In fact, socialism and communism is ill equipped to handle the problems that a post automation society will deal with.

I think that humanity, if it wants to thrive, has two options that are ideal. Distributism, and fascism. Why are these two systems ideal though? Because they are not materialist.

You see, in a post automation society, basic needs will always be met under most systems. Yet socialism and communism does not even attempt to deal with needs of the soul, and the human psyche. It just assumes that a society where no work is needed will be a healthy society, when I assure you this is not the case. As we move towards a society where our focus can turn away from filling peoples stomaches, we should turn that focus on purifying peoples souls and strengthening the family and the nation. Distributism and fascism are the two systems most equipped to deal with such problems in a post automation society.

capitalism is organized crime

nope not good either it just is like everything else m8

everything is a spook mate

LOL

capitalism doesn't depend on paying people wages, it is about ownership of the means of production, capitalists will own the automatons and things will remain capitalist, forever

>purifying peoples souls and strengthening the family and the nation
spooks

What's wrong with English, drone of Legion? Can you not speak English?

You fall back on lame attempts to insult my ego where you otherwise hove no substance to back you...

Our capitalist systems already have a way of dealing with automation, its called basic income.

>spooks
We've seen what happens when the fundamental foundations of society are discarded as "spooks".

No.

It's the natural order. Trading, bartering, free market. This is how God made it.

Communism is bad and from Satan.

Supporting capitalism is for beta cucks

Back to /leftypol/, commie cuck

why dont socialists just move to successful socialist countries?

Probably an extremely significant number Especially depending on your definition of socialist (does India count?).

A big factor in that shrinking number is the modernization of Communist China.

I'd be down to moving to Denmark or Norway, if it was easy.

I don't think they want non-third worlders though.

Wow, it's like capitalism advances technology

Because socialism must dominate the Earth so it is our mission to establish socialism in the states we currently reside.

Not necessarily. Consumerism has it worst.

>implying