When you realize there is no end to Capitalism

people that go into business together still have employees, and wolves have a goddamn hierarchy

you are simply retarded, and I'll SAY IT AGAIN

yeah he definitely was not speaking about the abolishment of private property or class, just a different business model where employees own all the stock

That's still social ownership.

Sure hireachy doesn't need or need not exist in a coop, but the idea that every wolves must hunt to get the reward, like everyone combining their capital to do businesses already makes it a coop.

Unless you are saying that the alpha wolf does nothing and takes the lion share of the hunt then I will concede that is not a coop

what's more, I don't see where you go off thinking your coop is some special totally not capitalist way of doing business

I thought he meant like OWNING employees. Makes sense if you want to get muh freedoms about it.

my freedom and money and company > your freedom to not be a slave

It is not. It is as said, social ownership instead of private property. It can still function as a company or firm, but now most if not all employee owns the means of production now

While not totally socialism, it is a great first step into it along with credit unions, syndicates and regular unions

Teach me how to live a profitable life guys. Im not gay (mentally ill), black or a woman. I should be able to take mastery of this system.

outside of a small group that system is always doomed to fail

no one has incentive to do anything more than their niche when they don't get reward beyond the "shared wealth lmao"

>you make a purchase, you're weighing how it's impacting your own value level, you're getting a benefit at some cost,
i always hate this argument. you're not weighing jack shit because there's such a huge disconnect between a product you see in the store and what it took to get that product there. Unless you have a paper under every product saying how much water, oil, trees are used and the amount of pollution an item made, people are not really thinking about the cost of their actions, it cannot be represented by the amount of dollars it costs.

It's socially owned instead of privately owned, you've removed major conflicts of interests between owners and workers, meaning you've cut out owners who demand a cut simply for owning, you've cut out the need for unions to demand fees to negotiate with owners, and worker-owners will maximize profit-utility instead of maximizing profit at the greater expense of the workers.

Don't tell me you fell for the socialism is a centrally controlled economy meme. Socialism is perfectly capable of existing with market economy.

>no one has incentive to do anything more than their niche when they don't get reward beyond the "shared wealth lmao"
Have you considered they want more wealth? Socialism doesn't dictate wealth be shared equally. In fact, socialism specifically does not. Socialism says "to each according to his contribution". Socialists just don't see ownership as a real contribution. Socialism is necessarily unequal in some ways. Even Marx said so.

oh no, they couldn't give a monkey's for what it took to get there, whatever that cost equates to is a part of the item's value anyway, the consumer is just considering how it impacts their purse, and what opportunity cost they may suffer

>it cannot be represented by the amount of dollars it costs.
Yes it can, if externalities are fully paid for. They're not in real life, but it's perfectly possibly to aggregate all of that stuff into a single price.

>implying all animal behavior is the same.

Your wolf metaphor is actually embarrassing. You're conflating a recent economic construct with human nature and you are justifying capitalist hierarchies solely through analogy.

This is bad history, animal psychology, economics, and rhetoric all wrapped up into one shitpost.

your post is a shitpost

go bugger an aardvark

yes i understand the cost takes into account all of that, but again, it doesn't give the consumer a measurement of resources used to make that product. of course, you're right, most people only care about their wallets. but considering the middle classes of the developed west are the most wasteful people in the world, and some of them are environmentally conscious, I'd think it would be helpful to put something like that up.

Nice. No refutation. Not the same person, but it's clear by your own words that you don't understand the most simple aspects of either socialism or capitalism :/

that's nice to know!

anyone else think this whole 'late-capitalism' business is just an accelerationist plot by the marxists?

for real, there wasn't really a problem until the last 200 years. Maximizing profits and having child slavery was there sure, but its also still here, just in other countries. But now everything has to be REPLACED. Surely we could spend more and buy less than constantly buying cheap things that breaks...? Idk where this mentality came from...

>marx thought once the problem of scarcity was finished, the proles would revolt, then communism
>nope
>surely once we degrade ties to family, nation, religion, etc the proles will realize communism is the way
>nope
>....
>what if we like, took over capitalism and crashed it??
>hmmm

Please elaborate on your wolf analogy and how it could in any way relate to human behavior.

It doesn't matter if externalities are taxed and paid for though. There's no externality or net negative effect to worry about.

If for example, you are worried about deforestation, when a product is properly taxed and regulated, it puts funds towards reforestation and conservation so there is no net damage to worry about. There might even be a net gain. So in this way, the externality of environmental damage can be figured into the price, simply by paying for activities that offset any damage. You no longer have any reason to worry, and no reason to need to know what damage happens, because there is no net damage to anything but your wallet, reflected in the price.

are you just thick or what m8?

I'm asking you to argue your position

Nobody wants socialism except edgefags. Central planned economies literally cannot complete with spontaneous order economies. Categorical priorities cannot operate as quickly and effectively as price coordinated economies where the decision making rests on the individual. Resources won't be managed as well since they lack the incremental subsitution aspect found in capitalistic models. You inevitably end up in a scenario where you have to tell/decide for the consumer what he can and cannot have. As polanyi said, it's as likely as a cat swimming across the atlantic.

Not saying capitalism is perfect. It's really not but at least it's superior to state planning since the managers have a direct stake in their company's wellbeing, and that will also be an extremely valuable incentive to ensure some degree of responsibility.

Also
>coops
Implying the workers literally have the time to manage all the details about production, distribution, transportation, product placement, R&D, marketing, etc, etc. Love them or hate them, subsumed classes do have a purpose. Once again not saying boardrooms built on top of boardrooms like we see in major corporations is desirable but most 'normal' bosses are here for a reason. Providing labour doesn't mean the product suddenly turns into cash. It's a nice idea but a bit naive and the main reason why cooperatives arent widespread; a lot tank.

Maybe you heard about this thing called the industrial revolution?

>>marx thought once the problem of scarcity was finished, the proles would revolt, then communism
No he didn't
>>surely once we degrade ties to family, nation, religion, etc the proles will realize communism is the way
Another strawman because you unironically think American "liberals" are Marxists.
>>what if we like, took over capitalism and crashed it??
Marxist theory says capitalism will crash itself. There are other critiques of capitalism, like Schumpeter's as well. You act like communism is a Jewish plot and Jews would rather have capitalism instead of shekels.

>You act like communism is a Jewish plot and Jews would rather have capitalism instead of shekels.
rather have communism that is.

it was already laid out

no sense wasting time

This only makes sense in a world where transparency and lack of corruption are the norm. Also, it's important to note that some environmental damage is not necessarily recoverable for a particular ecosystem.

fortunately for the most part life is adaptable

I get it, but you can't really paint over the fact that the things destroyed, "the externality," are replaceable only over a long period. Older trees are far more superior to younger one at absorbing carbon dioxide. Besides that reforestation, as I see it, cannot restore the environment as it once was because the way the trees were arranged and the types of trees or microhabitats cannot be replicated. the ecology is totally reshuffled. Therefore accounting for the externality would a half measure unless the customer knew how many acres of rainforest were being destroyed. but I suppose thats just as idealistic as supposing we can internalize all the externalities

>Nobody wants socialism except edgefags. Central planned economies literally cannot complete with spontaneous order economies.
But socialism isn't the same thing as a centrally planned economy. You fell for the free markets mean capitalism meme. Ricardian socialists were arguing you couldn't have a truly free market with private ownership of capital before Marx.

>Not saying capitalism is perfect. It's really not but at least it's superior to state planning since the managers have a direct stake in their company's wellbeing, and that will also be an extremely valuable incentive to ensure some degree of responsibility.
That's even more true when you have worker-owners and everyone cares about the state of the company rather than just their wages. This is true of actual coops. The issue with coops is raising capital, without relying on capitalists. You find lots of agricultural coops, because the original farmers used to have family owned farms and already owned the capital, but they needed to organize under a coop for economies of scale to compete.

>Implying the workers literally have the time to manage all the details about production, distribution, transportation, product placement, R&D, marketing, etc, etc.
Since when do shareholders do all that stuff? Do you even understand how capitalism works?

>Love them or hate them, subsumed classes do have a purpose. Once again not saying boardrooms built on top of boardrooms like we see in major corporations is desirable but most 'normal' bosses are here for a reason.
Management is also a form of labor though.

>Providing labour doesn't mean the product suddenly turns into cash.
Yes, this is obvious and completely unrelated. You act like coops are imaginary and don't employ upper management. They do. Even private companies, upper management answers to a board which represents owners. The difference in coops is upper management answers to workers, who are also the owners.

>not going for superior option
youtube.com/watch?v=g1Sq1Nr58hM

That's not really true in a lot of cases. humans, It can cause diaspora, mass death, civil uprising, etc. The hatred that is caused by particular environmental disasters is enough to cause wars. This is nothing to say of other flora and fauna in a particular ecosystem.

Not the point of my initial argue meant but okay. I just found hilarious that an advocate of capitalism more or less described a coop

Of course members don't have to collectively decide on every single details. Just like how board of directors don't have to give permission to everything a CEO does. Instead they elect a CEO and get to vote on major decisions in the company and decide what directions to take.

Bosses? As in managers are labourers all the same

Coops are rare for that reason, true. But also coz of people not knowing it can exist.

>This only makes sense in a world where transparency and lack of corruption are the norm.
Well yes, it's a hypothetical. If that can't be accomplished, neither can your piece of paper with deforestation statistics.

>Also, it's important to note that some environmental damage is not necessarily recoverable for a particular ecosystem.
If a behavior causes so great an externality that it can not be paid for, then it's illegal, because it results in a net social loss of utility. Just like many things are illegal with various regulations.

not so fast!

private flights to the moon soon comrade!

space.com/35876-how-spacex-moon-flight-will-work.html

I said and conservation. There are forms of logging that don't completely destroy ecosystems. If young trees don't supply as much utility, you simply provide more trees. You can't attach an arbitrary infinite value to a rock because it's impossible to have an identical rock. Things have actual real values based on their relative fungibility

but the fauna that survives is accustomed to the change, and all that follow from it are likewise adapted

So if you have a roach environment in your kitchen, and you demolish your house, you should make another roach environment to replace it? Things are only useful it they're useful. You might as well stop breathing because you're using up precious oxygen and exhaling greenhouse gasses.

a roach can make its environment out of anything though, it's not really a big deal

>No he didn't

yes, he did? he was trying to be as scientific as possible in his diagnoses, but when that failed later marxists like benjamin had to take a more intuiton route

>A similar movement is going on before our own eyes ... The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring order into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property

this was written almost 200 years ago. I dont see a worldwide communist revolution...

>Another strawman because you unironically think American "liberals" are Marxists.

or its argument because I've read marx? have you? Not even the communist manifesto:

>Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

>On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

>Marxist theory says capitalism will crash itself

I'm not pro-capitalist, I'm merely wondering if Marx saw a symptomatic decline and put forth a remedy, while marxISTS see a goal and want to hurry up the decline.

>You act like communism is a Jewish plot and Jews would rather have capitalism instead of shekels.

Going into /pol/ territory, but why have capitalism and shekels when you can have a neo-feudal global society of slaves, your manor being israel and the whole world your sef? We're already all basically serfs in the Western world anyways, most people are in debt and work jobs to stay alive.

The ecological impact is a side-effect of industrialism, that's all. You'd find the same problem in a socialist or capitalist economy. The day alternative energy sources are actually viable, the market will shift fast. Just like how the world world switched from whale oil to petrol in a few decades. Sure oilfags will try to maintain their share but if the price incentive is here then the customer will jump and the oil giants will tank like their all the other giants who become uncompetitive. Solar, buoys and windpower is completely relative to the country it's in. In australia, buoys are kinda okay but others they don't work. In UK, wind power is a meme even though their gov genuinely gave it a go. Solar has real potential but still needa for R&D. Right now nuclear is the only viable alternative to produce vast amounts of energy. The french for example do great with it, 80% of their electricity comes from it and they also sell it abroad to UK and netherlands en masse iirc. Although it has a bad reputation cause of disaster films and the chernobyl and japan plant memes. All I'm saying is that once a cheap and reliable renewable shows up, the market will take it. All we need to ensure that asap is to prevent government/corporation collusion (which isnt capitalism anyway, but corporatism). Guess I'm just an optimist.

>A similar movement is going on before our own eyes ... The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring order into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property
>>marx thought once the problem of scarcity was finished, the proles would revolt, then communism
How are those the same?

>On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
>>surely once we degrade ties to family, nation, religion, etc the proles will realize communism is the way
Again, not the same

>I'm not pro-capitalist, I'm merely wondering if Marx saw a symptomatic decline and put forth a remedy, while marxISTS see a goal and want to hurry up the decline.
You're being retarded. for most of "communist" history, they've been following Leninist revisionism and trying to skip the capitalism thing altogether. Modern American self identified leftists aren't Marxists.

>Going into /pol/ territory, but why have capitalism and shekels when you can have a neo-feudal global society of slaves, your manor being israel and the whole world your sef? We're already all basically serfs in the Western world anyways, most people are in debt and work jobs to stay alive.
You just answered your own question. They're almost the same thing.

that's not what I'm saying at all. the problem with fucking with the environment on a huge scale is that the effects of it will only be felt way down the line. Trees are essential to preventing soil erosion and absorbing excess water that could otherwise cause widespread flooding, mudslides and stuff like the dustbowl. It's even been said that the mass removal of clams from the northamerican seashore makes it way more susceptible to flooding.

I agree with all of that, but furniture industries cause destruction of rainforest in brazil for farming, mass extinction of animals by poachers for chinese markets, a mass killings of sharks for their fins alone. in a word, there are some things that can't be produced by industry that need to be extracted from the environment, and this extraction has detrimental effects on everything around it.

If it has actual detrimental effect besides your feefees, it can be quantified and either compensated for or banned.

>Again, not the same
marx viewed all those things as false consciousness made up by the bourgeoisie. I never said anything about american liberals.

>You just answered your own question. They're almost the same thing.
They're not the same thing. Capitalism always has some factor of 'rags to riches'. Of course not as much as the American Dream myth, but still in the system there is place for a smart person to make a way for themselves, whether it be improve a patent, etc. With Feudalism, you cannot move. More than just that, its ethnic fuedalism, which we already see to a degree with the nepotism of jewish people, but the fact that its not 100% jewish shows there is still wiggle room for non jews. Again not saying thats what marx wanted but I bet a whole lot of jews would prefer that to living in harmony

If your whole world view was built on you are the chosen people and will have your promised land back, would you settle with "eh, I can buy a ferrari?"

>everything that can't be measured is not real
it can, but only when you start loose millions of acres of land to erosion and desertification and water reservoirs are drawing more water than can be renewed because you're sustaining agricultural in places they were never meant to be.

>feefees
I'll be fine.

Marx stating what he already saw as existing is not Marxists making those things happen.

Feudalism also has rags to riches. You fight good maybe you get knighted or some shit.

You literally said
>We're already all basically serfs in the Western world anyways, most people are in debt and work jobs to stay alive. As far as shekels go, a big business owner can live a better life than and feudal king.

And if it causes such great harm that it can not be compensated for, that's a net societal loss and therefore you ban it. You can't predict everything. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.

>Since when do shareholders do all that stuff? Do you even understand how capitalism works
I wasn't talking about shareholders. I was talking about management - the bosses. Not every company is a corporation with investors.

>But socialism isn't the same thing as a centrally planned economy.
Are we playing that game where we are supposed to pretend socialism doesnt mean ownership of the means of production? Do pray tell who will administer the industrial apparatus other the state. How can individuals start their own entrepreneurial ventures when they need to request access to the industrial capacities of the state to get going? Scarcity is a still thing and that state, even with the best intentions, is going to fall prey to prioritisation as it tries to allocate resources the best it can. Intended or not, planned economies is always the end result.

>Ricardian socialists were arguing you couldn't have a truly free market
"Truly free markets" are a meme, there are always things which need some degree of regulation like land, labour or currencies. Since those things are not "standard "commodities in and of themselves and therefore need social regulations. To a degree. Free-markets is just the name for the framework in which all other commodities and be produced and consumed freely, it's not meant in an absolute literal sense.

Also I forgot to mention, there isn't anything inherently wrong with shareholders. You do want investments to get your product off the ground, right?

> The issue with coops is raising capital, without relying on capitalists
Exactly, yes. Unless you rely on a socialist economy where you petition for subsidies. Which is almost crossing that line into planned territory. Not quite, but almost. Especially if capitalism is gone and only the state can provide investments at this point. Decisions will have to be made.

Agrarian works fine, not really a surprise there. It's just the rest that tends to struggle.

What issue you have with capitalism?

Are you sure it's not an issue with that fact that only a select few are holding the true power?

I don't like the degradation of wildlife but that's literally secundary to the energy crisis. One is about the balancing act between meeting the energy requirements of an overall globally developing world vs making it inhabitable for us in the most literal sense; and the other is about preserving things we are emotionally or culturally attached to. Both suck but I fear I'm gonna play the pragmatic card here and focus on the bigger problem. Targeted poaching is never going to be as dangerous or lethal to global wildlife as acidification of the oceans or rising CO2.

>I wasn't talking about shareholders. I was talking about management - the bosses. Not every company is a corporation with investors.
Every company has owners that the bosses work to benefit. Whether it be shareholders, an individual, a family, themselves, or shareholders.

You seem completely oblivious to how companies work in real life and think it's a fantasy, and every business is actually a small mom and pop store.

>Are we playing that game where we are supposed to pretend socialism doesnt mean ownership of the means of production?
It absolutely does. Workers own the means of production. That has very little to do with a centrally planned economy.

> Do pray tell who will administer the industrial apparatus other the state.
The workers, and whoever the workers choose to administer it on their behalf.

>How can individuals start their own entrepreneurial ventures when they need to request access to the industrial capacities of the state to get going? Scarcity is a still thing and that state, even with the best intentions, is going to fall prey to prioritisation as it tries to allocate resources the best it can. Intended or not, planned economies is always the end result.
So banks are central planning now? You keep showing how much you don't understand how the real world works. Apparently coops can't diversify either.

>"Truly free markets" are a meme, there are always things which need some degree of regulation like land, labour or currencies.
You're literally retarded and don't know what a free market is because you've been too brainwashed by neoliberals (no that does not mean marxists, it means modern globalist capitalists) and think free markets means deregulation and socialism means central planning

Here's the wiki link
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

Educate yourself

>Also I forgot to mention, there isn't anything inherently wrong with shareholders.
Yes there is, because owners have the ultimate authority over what they own, they are prioritized over the well being of everyone else.

>You do want investments to get your product off the ground, right?
Without the social parasite if possible.

>Exactly, yes. Unless you rely on a socialist economy where you petition for subsidies. Which is almost crossing that line into planned territory. Not quite, but almost. Especially if capitalism is gone and only the state can provide investments at this point. Decisions will have to be made.
It's because retarded wage-laborers like to spend all their money and live in debt rather than investing in their own businesses and would rather suck job creator dick. Agrarian works fine because traditionally these farmers owned their own businesses.

It's like you haven't even studied capitalist economics, but you feel like you're an expert and can declare your strawman version of socialism inferior to capitalism which you don't even comprehend.

>yeah dude, coops are the way!
>why don't you start one, you and your comrades?
>no dude like the man is oppressing us like maaan how could I do that no man I should shitpost IRL and on the internet instead
gee I wonder why people don't like communists.

>Are you sure it's not an issue with that fact that only a select few are holding the true power?
Why are you acting like this is some sort of radical insight? Of course this is a Marxist's problem with capitalism. They wouldn't be complaining is society was mutualist.

I used my salary to start a business so I'm self employed now. It's like a co-op of one. I'm my own boss. I also invest with my retirement account, so I get to play capitalist. I have lots of free time to contemplate my former wagecuckoldry. I shitpost on Veeky Forums about co-ops because I see all these wagecucks around me complaining about their shitty jobs or kissing their boss' ass and it pisses me off. Obviously I don't go around in real life telling people they're wagecucks and telling them to start a co-op just so they can call me a commie. It's just painfully obvious what the problem with capitalism is. Capital owners are the winners, but retards would rather spend all their income on toys.

>Capital owners are the winners
Why would any non-capitalist care provided they have a decent life?

then just contribute more you dingus

>provided
Because it's not provided to a huge segment of people? Why would a capitalist provide more to a wagecuck than he has to? He wouldn't. People complain about shit all the time, and they act so fucking helpless when they complain about there being no jobs. They have to rely on capitalists to make jobs for them because they're filthy wagecucks. They want capitalists to bring back coal jobs. These people cuck themselves. A co-op is just large scale self-employment master race. You make your own fucking job.

But that's never been a secret that Marxists are mad at capitalists for having power. It's a testament to how few brain cells you have if you think you made some sort of discovery.

End of capitalism is already in far distant sight.

Late stage capitalism is basically abundance of resources. Once science understands how to do atomic/molecular changes, this will basically lead to startrek's replicator technology. Or in other words, Alchemist's dream of finding the "philosopher stone" which turns lead to gold and other stuff.

Atomic manufacturing are in research by IBM/Intel/etc right now. This path is already being seen. Once atomic manufacturing is matured, once molecular changing technology is matured, once asteroid/planetery mining is a thing, abundance of resources will be secured.

After this, its all AI controlled economy based on raw material.

>all these adhoms in your post
Getting mad now, I see. I hope you realise I havent talked down to you at any point.

>Every company has owners that the bosses work to benefit.
Once again I never said otherwise. You were the one who seems to want to conflate your average ownership with shareholding. Dure you can go full autist and say pa & ma stores are shareholded by said pa & ma, and you'd be right but you know what I meant in the context of coops and the workers themselves. Management is usually a problem for a lot of starting coops and start-up businesses alike. It is hard to divide one self's between managing and doing labour. Hence a lot tank.

>You seem completely oblivious to how companies work in real life and think it's a fantasy
I have been running my own small company for 4years now and hired my 3 employee this year. You're projecting hard. It doesn't seem to me like you understand the risk vs reward element of entrepreneurship. The labour I put in my business is literally 10x what my employees do. They simply have to perform the roles I crafted and assigned to them to collect a paycheck while I have to worry about everything else.

>The workers, and whoever the workers choose to administer it on their behalf
And I'm the one who's endoctrinated. The proletariat gets cucked every single time by their apparatchiks. Once again you fail to grasp that in a world where resources are scarce and the worker's party is the one in charge of both resources and industries, they are going to be the ones setting up the categorical priorities in how those things are redistributed within the economy. They obviously can't afford everyone who wants a subsidy a slice of the pie and without a private sector to take a chunk of the load, it can only lead to more planning. Should A or B get gibs? Multiply that by a 100,000 and we're almost there.

>So banks are central planning now?
Commercial banks are still free to govern their capital as they like. They are still private enterprises. The state treasury isn't. There is a coersive element in all this just keep missing. I can go to another bank, I can't just go to another country.

>You're literally retarded and don't know what a free market is because you've been too brainwashed by neoliberals (no that does not mean marxists, it means modern globalist capitalists) and think free markets means deregulation and socialism means central planning

Thanks for the wiki intellectualism. I was going by Polanyi definition of what is regulated within free-markets but obviously I guess he is a retard too.

Nice chatting with you.

>muh adhom
No, I'm just insulting you in addition to making points. It's Veeky Forums. Get over yourself and grow some skin.

>Dure you can go full autist and say pa & ma stores are shareholded by said pa & ma, and you'd be right but you know what I meant in the context of coops and the workers themselves.
A ma and pa co-op would simply be considered a small business with partners. Nothing at all radical about that. Nothing radical about self employment.

The reason shareholders were brought up because we're talking about co-ops for medium to large businesses.

>Management is usually a problem for a lot of starting coops and start-up businesses alike. It is hard to divide one self's between managing and doing labour. Hence a lot tank.
Co-ops often bring in management. This happens in the real world. It's not some sort of fantasy like you imagine it to be.

>entrepreneurship
Wow, so you think bankers are real entrepreneurs that put in 10x the work the people borrowing money do. Entrepreneurship is not the same as capitalism.

> endoctrinated
You don't have autocorrect?

>And I'm the one who's endoctrinated. The proletariat gets cucked every single time by their apparatchiks. Once again you fail to grasp that in a world where resources are scarce and the worker's party is the one in charge of both resources and industries, they are going to be the ones setting up the categorical priorities in how those things are redistributed within the economy. They obviously can't afford everyone who wants a subsidy a slice of the pie and without a private sector to take a chunk of the load, it can only lead to more planning. Should A or B get gibs? Multiply that by a 100,000 and we're almost there.
Yes, you're indoctrinated, because you keep falling back to muh state capitalism meme.

>Commercial banks are still free to govern their capital as they like. They are still private enterprises. The state treasury isn't. There is a coersive element in all this just keep missing. I can go to another bank, I can't just go to another country.
You know there are these things called states. Also credit unions are communist according to you.

>Thanks for the wiki intellectualism.
Apparently you can't educate yourself to the fact that there are multiple definitions of free markets and you bought into the deregulation meme. Obviously I was referring to the fact that there's multiple definitions when I said a certain branch of economists argued what was a true free market.

>entrepreneurship
You know big corporations internalize that by running multiple divisions, and they also do things like making R&D sign away all rights to intellectual property rights to the corporation right? Entrepreneurs often seek investors and employees. If you were socialist, you'd seek partners who were both.

here
>>How can individuals start their own entrepreneurial ventures when they need to request access to the industrial capacities of the state to get going? Scarcity is a still thing and that state, even with the best intentions, is going to fall prey to prioritisation as it tries to allocate resources the best it can. Intended or not, planned economies is always the end result.
It seems logical that if entrepreneurship in unorthodox ventures benefits society, central banks would reserve some capital to try those things and give some priority to entrepreneurship.

What you are describing is efficiency.

While capitalism is designed to incentivize efficiency, by protecting private property, it is hardly the same.

It's pretty funny that nowadays "it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism".

what the fuck could be more motivating if the worker and the shareholder are the same person?

this is a 'muh job creators' tier argument

>But now everything has to be REPLACED. Surely we could spend more and buy less than constantly buying cheap things that breaks...?
Planned obsolence is the term you're looking for, and it's inherent to capitalism. Production for use would abolish it.

Have you never thought it's suspicious as fuck how the longevity of computers has only decreased over the years?

>Apparently you can't educate yourself to the fact that there are multiple definitions of free markets and you bought into the deregulation meme.
You got that wrong and jumped the gun hard. I concur with him and think some aspects of the not-so-free-market should be kept regulated. You'd have to be an idiot to remove regulations on labour like worker's rights or the 8hour day. Unlike most anti-commies, I actually can appreciate that Marx's 'ideas' had a time and a place during the early-mid industrialisation period. I just don't think it's as applicable now anymore, at least in the developed world. I have no love for neoliberalism, does nothing but invite in corporatism where big businesses can use specifically engineered regs to kill small competitors while they can either tank the cost or outright dodge them by dancing international jurisdictions by moving hq x in country A or moving hq y in country B.

>you keep falling for the state capitalism meme
Because despite what the (((theory))) says, that's what happens. Also from what I understand that term is what lenin called his nep policy to go from feudal to capitalism pronto in ordee to begin socialism. You might want to revise your buzzwords a little.

>Also credit unions are communist according to you.
Look at that, another strawman! I don't think they are communist, I just think they lack behind your run-of-the-mill business model. Some can be successful, sure. I just have doubts as to whether they could become a viable alternative which could effectively supplant capitalist ventures.

>Wow, so you think bankers are real entrepreneurs that put in 10x the work the people borrowing money do.
Of course I do not. But I also don't think their job is useless. Managing portfolios of investors is important to keeping the market going and all sorts of companies on the ground growing. That being said do I think they should be as unregulated as they are and let off the hook so easy when they fuck up? Hell no.

>Because it's not provided to a huge segment of people?
That's not true in first world countries

Atleast give credit for that quote.

I read it in Mark Fisher's "Capitalist Realism". Don't remember if it's his or if he was quoting someone else

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_Corporation#Organizational_structure

Because we all know that Valve and Steam as an extension are a total market failure and every employee is literally dying in a breadline.

there is literally nothing wrong with capitalism, it is just working smart

Until people keep talking economics in moralistic terms, there cannot be a useful discussion on capitalism

>MUH EXPLOITASHUN
t. marxfags

Until people keep thinking marxist economics is anything but a pseudoscience at this point, there cannot be a useful discussion on capitalism.

Economics are as much of a science as sociology. Take that however you wish.

kek where did I talk about Marxism?

I don't even mind capitalism. Full-Employment Fordism is fucking great.
It's modern neoliberal consumerism that makes me legitimately contemplate suicide daily.

Absolutely memetic.
Capitalism is a purely human phenomenon, and even then human societies organized themselves on different ideas beyond history.
Haven't you heard of the Reign of Terror?

I don't have the image to hand, it originally used bears but I'll use wolves.

Wolves do not have private property. They have territory, yes, but there's no system whereby wolves extract unearned income - say by allowing other wolves to hunt within their territory in exchange for a share of the animal killed. There is no such thing as a landlord wolf extracting rent from the productive activity of other wolves.

Yet. I'm sure the market will engineer a solution because that'd be fucking cool to watch.

>Dat pic tho
TopKek

>There is no such thing as a landlord wolf extracting rent from the productive activity of other wolves.

>what are pack alphas?

t-this is bait r-right?

>giving marxism a capital letter
marxfag detected

>>outside of a small group that system is always doomed to fail
MONDRAGON
M O N D R A G O N

>surely once we degrade ties to family, nation, religion, etc the proles will realize communism is the way
Memetic. SJWs have always undermined marxist groups.
This is the end result of capitalism. They stabilized it a bit after WW2, but porky couldn't handle having to compete for workers and wrecked it again. ( youtube.com/watch?v=sdZp5iw-UEo )

Some tech guy will point out moore's law, but the interesting thing is that it's actually slowed in recent time if I remember correctly - so naturally you'd think devices would last longer than ever.
I suppose partially it's a functioning of declining real cost per device, but that's something of a false efficiency. (I'm thinking of the analogy that a poor person can buy a $10 pair of shoes that'll die in a year, whereas if I pay $30 I'll get a pair that last 5 years - he's out $50 and i'm out $30 over the 5 year period, so by being richer i'm actually able to lower my costs, and by being poorer he's actually paying out more. Replace shoes with electronics and multiply the price by 10-20.)

>socialism is central planning.
read a book
>and that will also be an extremely valuable incentive to ensure some degree of responsibility.
Meanwhile in the financial sector...
>Implying the workers literally have the time to manage all the details about production, distribution, transportation, product placement, R&D, marketing, etc, etc.
They already do. What the fuck is a distributor but another worker? Who does marketing? whoa, it's a marketer! a worker! and so on.

>I can't just go to another country.
Yes you can, get on a fucking plane.
>b-but they'll impose conditions!
Tough, you don't like it take your business elsewhere. If no country is offering such a thing, clearly the market just can't bare it.

The Alpha-Beta-Omega thing is actually meme animal psychology, and contributes useful activity in a way - say - a shareholder does not.