Capitalists will defend this

>You'll never have a pissing contest on the top balcony trying to piss on poorfags

The destruction of incentive will not render a medium conclusion.

This is assuming all incentive will be destroyed. No no, we will begin a campaign of global development to eliminate the concept of scarcity. With that, the content live simple lives, and the ambitious expand the frontiers.

>This

>destroying incentive will magically bring equilibrium
Did your mommy teach you compromise will always bring about an equal and placid actuality?

Funnily enough, I was an orphan. Nice double dubs though.

>expand the frontiers

Give an example of this

Determination of contentment is predicated on a person's environment. If they adequately survive, with no ability to compare, then they could be content eating grasshoppers. The only reason the lower class is not content is because they compare their actuality to the affluent... You know why? Because they, themselves, are selfish
>>>/thread/

>commuefags will defend this

tl;dr Hedonist treadmill is not solely pertinent to the wealthy

Well, there is nothing wrong with wealth inequality, per se. But more to the point, that image has nothing to do with capitalism (or free markets, which is retards usually mean when they say capitalism). The situation in Brazil is the result of government cronyism and could not exist if the market were more free.

The continual expansion of both industry on Earth, the manipulation of genetics, and the expansion into space will eventually lead to a culmination of more resources than we know what to do with. Supply and Demand would be fucked beyond repair, and prices would fall to lows beyond management. With companies no longer able to make profits, money would no longer be useful and the system would be abolished.
It is not selfish to seek comfort, a good meal, or any other such luxury men enjoy. However, it is selfish to hoarse these things for yourself rather than allow for others to partake in these.

I fail to see how free-markets would prevent a higher-income housing complex to be built next to a slum, but other than that, maybe. People blame the proficiency of an economy solely on its economic system definition. Isn't it more so dependent on cultural variables such as ethicallity and education?

You did not even read what I said... Contentment is subjected to personal environment

Poor are not inherently discontent, rather they are discontent because they compare themselves to wealthy... Critical reading... Please...

>it is selfish to hoarse these things for yourself rather than allow for others to partake in these.
Correct but that doesn't give you the right to take away their money.

>You know why? Because they, themselves, are selfish
>>>>/thread/
And that is not strictly true. People have goals and want to achieve things and be remembered. Some people want to be astronauts/cosmonauts and explore the stars. Some men want to be scientists and create new theories and materials.
See above. You lack a broader perspective of the motivations of people and assume there is a single driving factor to how they operate, a fallacy of the highest levels. If there is one rule to follow when talking about humans, it is never assume something is simple enough to have a single factor.

Also,
>taxes
It can be done, and democratically too.

>not discrediting the socialology of his beliefs to argue him
>using subjective "rights" as a argument
We are on the same team, user, but take out his foundation
"Underprivileged" people like Marxism not because they believe in dialectic materialism, but because they are materialists that want to be rich.

And how does capitalism provide a different outcome to corporatism, or in any way prevent corporatism?

A secluded village with no external contact doesn't concern itself with inequalities if it does not know about inequalities.
This is a fallacy to marxists...
Whew...
>believing in objectively inherent desires

Is it really capitalism? I mean you don't see favelas in Switzerland or Norway even though they're both capitalist. It's obviously racial.

Much more efficient than capitalism.

Of course, there will be internal concerns of inequality within the residences of the village, but that is my point. Desires are dependent on environment. You cannot argue that.

Why do you fucking angloshits mess up the definition of corporatism? It's like liberalism. What you think it means, it doesn't really mean.

This. Anglos are imbeciles.

>It's obviously racial.

No it's not "obviously" racial. It's a class problem, which race often correlates with. There is ultimately nothing stopping a black man from hoarding his cash / using it on the same excessive shit as a white man, if he had that cash. And "if he had that cash" is a class problem.

>they have goals
>implying selfishness isnt the predicate of these goals. Whew
When will marxism admit that contemporary humanity is driven by egos.

>commie cuck doesn't realize they're all unoccupied

With egos, come the desire for hierarchy

To his credit, many federal governments have anti-monopoly/corporatism laws. Just not the US.
Thankfully, we have things like books to record the inequalities of the past.
>not believing that people naturally desire to create change and be remembered, contributing to a larger whole

So much for that "Protestant work ethic" huh?
Selfishness is not a necessity of human nature, as exemplified by things like compulsory charity. Even if you argue it is for an emotional feeling of satisfaction for doing a good deed, it is still a driving factor in how people behave. Now, just replace donating money with donating your time and skills.

And how does capitalism provide a different outcome to corporatism, or in any way prevent corporatism?

Literature is an item of the damn social environment... You are agreeing with me.

Literature is a medium of communication. That's like saying eating food is capitalist.

A social environment is any item, idea or person that an individual is exposed to, why are you arguing this?

corpocracy is different from corporatism.

Read

Ignorant people won't understand this.

>class problem
Weird how favelas exist only in shitskin countries regardless of socialism/capitalism, while white people don't have this phenomenon.

I know what the social environment is, it's just a meaningless classification for the purpose of this argument. Our points of parallel.

Marxists lack critical reading.
T. Ex-middleschool marxist

Damn image how fun it would be to get a trebuchet or something and start launching clusters of grenades into the favelas from the rooftop of right.

Why don't rich people do shit like this in third world countries?
Videogames prove that people would get entertainment from doing psychopathic shit like that and in a third world country there's not really anyone who would stop them.

Corporatism is the fascist economic model, dumbass. It's not a synonym of unhinged corporate capitalism.

Ah, what a beatiful view of the shanty town from the pool side. Such relaxing sounds of gunshots and car motors.

>Denying that people are determined by their social environment
>calling it arbitrary classification by EBIL CAPITALISTS
This is why no one takes you seriously.

Real corporatism is closer to syndicalism than corpocracy.

That wall does not look nearly as thick and tall as it should be.

I completely fail to see what's wrong in this picture.

>in a third world country there's not really anyone who would stop them.

I think you overestimate just how shitty and lawless the third world is.

What's wrong with hierarchy exactly?

Apparently there are Russian tour agencies that take people yachting off the coast of Somalia with a ton of slavshit.

>Ignoring basic sociology
>Stating he knows the future humanity needs
Another episode of this

It makes your view from the balcony ugly.

Nah, the view helps me enjoy my $25 burger more.

Well, I don't get why Communists/Socialists think that nihilism is a better alternative than a flawed hierarchy of value.

Corporatism is a descriptive term for the incorporation of societal interests such as workers' unions and employers' organisations into policymaking, as opposed to a pluralist model of lobbying and free competition of interest groups. Why would that be specific to fascism?

>Why would that be specific to fascism?
Not him, and it isn't. That's still not what you have in capitlism. You have corpocracy. People get it wrong and it triggers my autism.

Fascism didn't invent it, but they adopted it. It's pretty central to fascism.

Unless your intention is to create a dystopia straight out of an Ayn Rand Novel, people should be allowed to accumulate wealth they earned through their own work.

Of course I doubt the folks in the condo are all rags to riches stories of herculean willpower, they likely had more advantages in life. However can you explain what is wrong with helping your children with their education or passing wealth to them? If someone earned wealth fair and square, why shouldn't they do with it as they wish? If they take responsibility and raise their kids right, why should they be branded a sellout and penalized?

youtube.com/watch?v=Q5D2RvIQwQE

Some family wealth might date back to the days of slavery or some other clearly immoral acquisition, but how do you determine this? What does your scouter say about their undeserved privilege levels? The vast majority of wealth comes from new technology and recent industrialization and the proportion that was obtained immorally is likely smaller than the amount paid in tax to welfare.

There is literally nothing wrong with capitalism.

It's a nice building

Those walls exist because favela monkeys commonly attack and kidnap rich white people in Brazil and the murder rates in favelas are horrifying. How come white people don't have this problem? Even in super poor European countries like Moldova or Bulgaria which are pretty much on par with Brazil in living standards you never see this problem.

>Even in super poor European countries like Moldova or Bulgaria
Don't eastern european countries have a huge problem with human trafficking?

All dogs are animals, can we call all animals dogs now? It's not a fascist economic model, it's a model that fascists used.

All the human traffickers in Eastern Europe are Jews, Albanians, Gypsies or Turks, this is a documented fact. But nevertheless, your point has nothing to do with the post you're replying to, Eastern European countries are actually almost all absurdly safe compared to the USA or Latin America (with the exception of Russia which is a multicultural, not fully white country) despite being poor. Violent crime correlates far better with race than it does with poverty.

i wouldn't advocate for taking all of a rich man's money. just taking some of it through taxation, and redistributing it to people who desperately need it.
i don't see how anyone can justify holding great wealth while their neighbor starves. it's not like a reasonable model of wealth redistribution would leave these people poor. more along the lines of slightly less obscenely rich.

>Eastern European countries are actually almost all absurdly safe compared to the USA

doubt.jpg

I guarantee the people on the left have a higher birth rate. They win in the long run.

Sao Paolo already has that. You would have to go to extremes to prevent pictures like OP's from appearing and these extremes would only end up hurting the poor.

Favela niggers have cash, they spend it all on LCD TVs, smartphones and expensive shoes instead of saving for the future, improving their homes of getting an education.

ayy

Murder rate per 100k people:

Slovenia 0.7
Poland 0.7
Czechia 0.7
Croatia 0.8
Slovakia 1.1
Serbia 1.3
Bosnia 1.3
Romania 1.5
Hungary 1.5
Bulgaria 1.6

etc.

United States 3.9

The only Eastern European countries that are more dangerous than USA is Russia (a multicultural cesspit much like the USA or Brazil) and Ukraine (a literal warzone). People severely underestimate what a dangerous place America is.

Norway has a more solid social democratic/socialist base.

These apartments look like shit aswell

>Weird how favelas exist only in shitskin countries regardless of socialism/capitalism, while white people don't have this phenomenon.
Europe was full of favelas until relatively recently. Look at Victorian London. Eastern Europe still has crowded, dirty, under-maintained areas.

>anything other than laissez-faire capitalism is Ayn Randian dystopia

That's not capitalism though.

kys marxist

...

That ghetto being there. They should remove it.

>Even in super poor European countries like Moldova or Bulgaria which are pretty much on par with Brazil in living standards you never see this problem.
Wrong. Eastern Europe has seen a surge in crime since the late 80s and early 90s.
>All the human traffickers in Eastern Europe are Jews, Albanians, Gypsies or Turks, this is a documented fact
>le not REAL white people meme!!!11!!!1!!
I find your lack of sources amusing.
That's a meme.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#1990s
kek

You're missing a big reason why the USA has more murders than those countries:
Niggers.

>I find your lack of sources amusing.
The fact "Russian" mobsters and human traffickers are people like Semion Mogilevich (Jewish), Boris Nayfeld (Jewish), Ahmed Noukhaev (Chechen), Nikolai Suleimanov (Chechen), Zakhari Kalashov (Georgien) etc should be proof enough.

Anyway, what were you trying to say? That human trafficking is related to poverty? The people who run human trafficking rings are probably several times more loaded than your entire extended family put together.

>1990s
You have to go 20 years back in time to prove your point and you still fuck it up - Hungary, Slovakia, Czech republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Slovenia are still lower than the US. And this is with the Balkan countries being just a few years removed from a war.

Actually I didn't miss that at all. If anything, it was the central point of my argument.