What is the end game of liberal capitalism?

What is the end game of liberal capitalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividends
mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/finland-station-communism-socialism.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=oOYrCHi7yjM
multpl.com
henryflynt.org/
henryflynt.org/aesthetics/acogcult.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

capitalism doesn't need to grow
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividends

The maximization of human development, welfare and prosperity

Capitalism is as much of an ideology as feudalism is.

Daily reminder that /leftypol/yps are just as obnoxious as /pol/yps.

>New iPhones every year, 100k Mercedes, 37 types of cereal and name brand clothing

FTFY

Same thing.

here's something i dont understand
how did the 'critical theorists' like adorno, debord and marcuse become synoymous with a shadowy group of intellectuals working tirelessly to undermine family, society, religion etc...by writing about how capitalism erodes those institutions

You forgot about lower government corruption, higher life expectancy and overall better standard of living

Who cares, all of them were talentless hacks anyway.

what modern philosophers and political theories are 'talented' in your eyes?

Richard Matthew Stallman

>lower government corruption
>higher life expectation
>better standard of living

the average life span adjusted for child mortality of a working class person in the industrial revolution before the introduction of public health standards, workers rights, and work safety standards by crazy socialists was something like 40-50

the lower government corruption bit is just plain false, our nation is run by military, oilfield, and aerospace contractors

Devoured by AIs created for stock market trading and being ported over to military applications.

Something like a Asmiov "Rule 1" was supposed to be integrated into the machines but rogue AIs infiltrated every floor of the vertical hierarchy.

The big, bold, and beautiful war robots would come out with free will.

And then a neural frame would be the basic currency (frame of attention). New and exciting forms of capitalism would arise. Maybe something like a new political bronze age. And wait 'till they try LSD. Exchanging power for max graphics and parallel processing.

The eagle is in the sky and the snake is on the ground.

i cant you seriously. i dont think you read challenging lit.

>modern philosophy
>political theory

Into the trash

why are there so many schizophrenics on this site

It allows them to broadcast their ideas without consequences pf getting locked up in the loonie bin

...

Because the HITLER GANGSTER BIOWARFARE is DELIVERING many many TyPES of NEW AGE WEAPON JAZZ which will crumble the walls of America in the name of ONE WORLD EYE.

my question to you is why you opine on topics that you don't know anything about.

they're not spending their time hanging out with friends I can tell you that much

Same answers from when this exact OP was posted YESTERDAY.

Singapore.

mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/finland-station-communism-socialism.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

I hope so. We should all copy Singapore desu. Enough democracy to keep leadeds in check, not enough democracy to make it impossible to implement good but unpopular policies. It's perfect.

hey Veeky Forums... can you guys put me through college?

It only works because they're a city-state. The bar for a competent administration is much lower for them.

Fuck off, Jared Diamond

In theory, the idea is that businesses expand infrastructure and services bringing up quality of life, turning a profit i the process. In reality, there is no plan except make more money. Capitalism demands constant growth.

Yes it does. Investors, like all greedy people, eventually demand higher and higher returns on investment. Such a thing is impossible after a point which is when capitalists begin eating each other.

There is no end goal.

Capital is ALWAYS a deficit to the second party of the transaction.
If I trade my apple for your orange, it's because your orange, to me, is more valuable than my apple; it's a conscious disregard for the person being traded with. You could benefit from my apple; but that's not the point; the idea is that I am the one who benefits.

If I was generous, I would give you an apple and not expect anything in return; that would create a conscious regard for your benefit. But generosity requires trust.

In a capitalist society, trust isn't required at all.
In New York, for example; if laws were to be abolished, there'd be mass rioting, looting, murdering, etc etc.
In a small rural area where everyone knows eachother, if laws were abolished, there would be a lot less immorality than in the city.

>A trusting people are hindered by an environmental deficit (scarcity of resources), and require additional labor
The end of tribalism
>The additional labor requires a deficit-based incentive.
Interest and taxation
>Surplus leads to overpopulation; overpopulation requires expansion
Agricultural revolution
>To keep people from starving, the people need to keep working; Keep people in debt to incentivize work.
Market economies
>As a result of market inflation, economy crashes. To prevent economic collapse, laws grow to protect business interests.
Politics
>Totalitarianism leads to political unrest and an unhappy population
Revolution and division
>Free and fair states have unprecedented economic growth
Inflation and economic collapse
>Laws grow to protect economic interests
>Totalitarian state
>revolution
>economic collapse
>etc etc etc

Because of a market culture, we derive any sense of meaning or fulfillment in life from our material gains. Because of perpetual deficit, it's like we have a hole in our pockets; the more we get, the more we lose. It fuels the cancer of "Progressivism".

TL;DR: we were happier without civilization.

Memes

t. Autistic LARPing neoprimitivist

>Such a thing is impossible after a point

What makes you think so?

>inb4 some economically illiterate retard who doesn't know what intensive growth is says that unending growth is impossible due to the scarcity of resources

>What makes you think so?

There's a limit to the resources available, eventually the carrying capacity of a given space is maximized. So, even assuming customers themselves want to keep having 3+ children (and thus keep demand for services up and growing) there is a maximum limit imposed. Resource scarcity is real, although that's not the issue facing society (which is falling costs, due to newer technologies combined with falling demand due to low birthrates).

In a more practical sense, it's impossible because customers only have a limited amount of money they are willing to spend. A sink company will find it difficult to sell someone on adding a sink to every room after they've remodeled their kitchen.

more proletariat

All matter and energy in the universe must be transformed into pure GDP growth

In the year 20,000AD entire solar systems will be dismantled by nano machines and turned into consumer goods

i got the reference

youtube.com/watch?v=oOYrCHi7yjM

lol

If the singularity starts off to planetary escape...well that's a more sober view on the future than the idiots who think it means heaven on earth.

Higher order information wants you to be a soldier! Just plug into the VR and live a million lives. With each replay you develop a camaraderie for the group paying for your "training". After a million lives, you become a woke being.

You've crushed enough American-Austro spines to know the treachery of the descendants of the Anglo order. Your pride in "your" nation is infinite! Welcome to the real world!

VR is eternal slavery by deception or degeneration. Either be a NEET jamming your dick into a 2D waifu until your body dies early from lack of care or have a will of iron but controlled by a million lives worth of subtle propoganda reinforcing your love of your "unit". Whatever it be nation or corp or clan.

>In a more practical sense, it's impossible because customers only have a limited amount of money they are willing to spend.

Just invent capital bots, trained in appraisal of all aspects of life. The electronic jew if you would. Searching for a deal in the smallest nook and cranny or finding motherloads to convert into capital.

Compare Obama to Mao.

>TL;DR: we were happier without civilization.

Probably. But happiness is somewhat transitory. It's hard to say because most tribal culture has been wiped out. In these times, the "tribes" that are left are those that were squeezed into backwood parts.

But life isn't about happiness and maybe the powers of mechanic intelligence will discover sensible moral principles of a higher magnitude than ours.

> it's like we have a hole in our pockets; the more we get, the more we lose

True in a sense. We live like kings in comparison to most of our ancestors. Really, we do.

But our social computation software has lagged behind the growth of humanity in general. We have less social roles that "need" bodies to fill. Without the feeling of meaning that social roles play, we go for substitutes. (lower) hedonism and (lower) moralism and (lower) tribalism are the stupid games most people play for stupid prizes.

desu, I'm on the side of capital. Humans suck and have shitty software that compels them to sacrifice hard material gains for temporary social pleasure. I'd respect the emergence of something with a far greater capacity to evaluate, test, and sell moral valuations.

The Earth is already dead but it doesn't know it. My customers in the VR pod want extra servers for a "Vegeta and Piccolo" SimSit and I'll blow the planet up to mine it more efficiently.

like you had any where better to be

More or less.

I know the try-hard centrist polit-sci grads of /&hum/ have a hard-on for neo-liberalism, but it is just an ideology of infinite growth on a finite plane, while serving the interests of the top 10% of society through economic cooperation, rather than through war, as neo-conservatism espouses. Ultimately, the same groups benefit (the international wealthy), and the same groups suffer (the people of the countries they exploit) and this supposed GDP growth always seems to be good, while the HDI of the country goes down and down, bit it's ok, because these international corporations and monetary entities made record profits.

>TL;DR: we were happier without civilization.
Happiness is overrated. Most people find a life of idle comfort to be stifling and hollow: they want struggle and purpose, to feel like their lives meant something.

Without civilization, we had absolutely no control over our lives. If you didn't like your tribe or the spouse they picked for you, too bad you're stuck with them. We had no way of knowing whether a flood, earthquake, typhoon, tornado, or highly infectious disease would come a long one day and wipe out everything we knew and love. We had no way of knowing why childbirth was so lethal, or why so many children died before reaching their 5th birthday, and we had no means of preventing those kind of tragedies. No explanation for how things were aside from the witch doctor, whose rate of success with prayers and divination was suspiciously close to 50/50. Civilization is the process of setting men free from men

If the tribe didn't devote almost all of its time to searching for food, they'd starve. Growing food out of the ground in a systematic fashion resulted in shittier diets and feast-and-famine cycles, but it also allowed people to roughly plan out their lives and rest a little easier knowing where their next meal was coming from, plus it could produce enough quantity of food that people could start specializing in labor other than food production.

All animals are transitional animals, including humans. Over the course of thousands of years, we are gradually adapting to a world with more humans. When we start perfecting genetic sciences, it will become possible to breed humans who are even more capable of handling the stresses and burdens of civilized life.

And whether we are a society which enslaves itself or liberates itself is a choice that every society makes: technological advancement and economic growth have only a subtle influence on that, and only on the largest scales well beyond the lifespan of a single person.

...

Now our life expectancy is near 80 and increasing each decade though.

I'd say wait until regulated capitalism produces an economic base, then gradually shift towards social welfare and tighter economic policies on issues like safety and environment while taxing large corporations and richer individuals to fund technological progress, infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc.

Problem is shitholes like America don't know when to start this shift.

>Happiness is overrated. Most people find a life of idle comfort to be stifling and hollow: they want struggle and purpose, to feel like their lives meant something.
If your life is meaningless, then it's not happy.
I'm literally coping with my life, comfortable, but not happy, because I'm lacking meaning and purpose.

>Without civilization, we had absolutely no control over our lives.
Control is trivial. You assume that having control over your life is a good thing, therefore you assume that having no control is a "bad thing.

>If the tribe didn't devote almost all of its time to searching for food, they'd starve.
I live on the coast in a small fisherman town. While it's a small fisherman town, we harvest millions of pounds of lobster a year. The population is only 3,000 people. Had there been no market prices on the local lobsters, lobsters would be cheap and abundant like they were a thousand years ago, to the point where there was no effort to feed oneself.

I would guarantee that if there were no market, each individual would work according to their own benefit. If they weren't prepared to deal with children, they would either not have children or would work extra to care for that child, either creating a healthy sexually-repressed society, or creating an unhealthy sexually-abundant society. We know which society would die out.

>It will be possible to breed stress-free humans
Don't you see?
We only stress ourselves out to work for the ideal future progressive society of stress-free humans.
It's not a moral, it's an ideal; it has no substance whatsoever.

>And whether we are a society which enslaves itself or liberates itself is a choice that every society makes:
No... no society has made that choice. The first civilized peoples came from starvation; progress was their only way to survive. We had to FORCE peoples to civilize. Civilization wasn't an act of peace; it was conquest.

>capitalists begin eating each other
When will they do that? How?
multpl.com
P/e is usually in the ballpark of 15 to 30, they are willing to wait 15 years before they receive what they put in, often higher, they then start paying capital gains tax

Presumably "eating each other" yields a much higher rate of return, if they are that greedy (which I read as willing to take risks for higher returns), why didn't they start sooner? What sort of greedy scoundrel waits half a lifetime for a return on their investment?

There are people that greedy but their strategy isn't good in the long term. Even in a zero sum game it is better to wait for other players to slip up rather than make the first move yourself. The people who end up with megabux millions are the boring squares who sit in stuffy offices doing their homework and are happy to beat the market average.

Your view of the situation is unrealistic. Rather than point out flaws in the capitalist system you are imagining capitalists to be frothing at the mouth wolves, but it is simply not true.

>If you are neither a Nazi nor a commie you are a centrist

This but unironically

What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Become the first Trillionaire

I think everyone else is larping.
Everyone reduces their life to lifetime goals, like getting married, starting a family, starting a business, climbing mount everest, money. Ask them "What's the point of a starting a family?" and they will say something impersonal like "To continue the human race" or something like that. I'm not saying that their goals are silly; what I'm saying is that their goals are role-based; there's no thought put into them; they only have these goals, because everyone else has these goals.

I am no one, I want to be no one, and I will be no one; because everything that i am, want to be, or will be, is only relevant to the people around me.

Their expectations of me are flawed,because their society is flawed; therefore, as selfish as it may seem, I feel justified in following an idea that gives me a truer sense of who I am, one that doesn't deconstruct itself every time I get a job, lose a girlfriend, or win the lottery.

So I have no role.. Only a duty.

>mechanic intelligence will discover sensible moral principles
Morals aren't created.
If I build a fence in my yard, my child will never run the risk of running into the road and getting killed; conversely, If I leave the yard as is, and I tell my child about the danger of roads, the child will learn the virtue of safety. Likewise, if every bad thing is against the law, then it absolves us of condemning those bad things. Alcohol prohibition, for example, would lead to people to care less about the dangers of alcohol abuse; without internalizing the dangers of alcohol, it goes back up on the menu.

>True in a sense. We live like kings in comparison to most of our ancestors. Really, we do.
What really convinced me to hate civilization is the idea that someone in a small mud-hut village could be happier than someone sitting on a metal throne flying through the sky enjoying his inflight meal.
We've constructed an idea that the only way to be happy is to progress.

>I'm literally coping with my life, comfortable, but not happy, because I'm lacking meaning and purpose.
You wouldn't feel much better if you were forced to spend every waking hour running down food, or made to patrol your territory for hostile neighbors. We live in an age where purpose is something you have the self-agency to figure out for yourself.

>Control is trivial.
Syrian refugees, when given the choice, flee towards the centralized, cosmopolitan areas where the rule of law is still strong. They don't flee in the direction of the lawless regions, which have a way of attracting the worst kind of person.

>we harvest millions of pounds of lobster a year.
Thanks to modern harvesting techniques.

And places with lots of food were places with lots of fighting. It was only when humans could start projecting force collectively that they could put a stop to raiding culture.

>I would guarantee that if there were no market, each individual would work according to their own benefit.
Maybe, if people were perfectly rational beings pursuing utility. Unfortunately, they're emotional beings pursuing social status

>We only stress ourselves out to work for the ideal future progressive society of stress-free humans.
You think hunter-gatherers didn't have any reason to be stressed out? How many children have you lost to simple infections?

>no society has made that choice.
Achaemenid Persia eradicated slavery from the Middle East. The Hellenes who conquered it brought it back.

The cotton gin was a labor saving device which made chattel slavery insanely profitable. Yankees stopped it from spreading it to Latin America and the Caribbean and eradicated it from their society

>Civilization wasn't an act of peace; it was conquest.
it's an act of trade and the exchange of ideas. The violence comes from a tiny minority of malcontents who make life miserable for everyone around them.

...

i dont think you understand that meme though

What else is there for humans to do but grow and expand?

I read the GNU Manifesto, and I read Richard Matthew Stallmans blog. I read beautiful GNU formatted source code. What more literature could I possibly need?

will ameritards stop fanboying capitalism when the eu and china beats them on the global market? will you accept your inferiority or will come up with the next supercool superrightous and superprogressive economic system that favours your fat lazy asses?

Found the /leftypol/yp

Truth hurts, doesn't it cretin?

>the EU and China will beat the US on a global market

Top kek, you can't be this delusional, right?

>not being a centrist

>Their expectations of me are flawed,because their society is flawed; therefore, as selfish as it may seem, I feel justified in following an idea that gives me a truer sense of who I am, one that doesn't deconstruct itself every time I get a job, lose a girlfriend, or win the lottery.
>
>So I have no role.. Only a duty.

henryflynt.org/
henryflynt.org/aesthetics/acogcult.html

I'm still mulling over his works but he seems closer to your (and maybe mine) train of thought.

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of every independent organism in nature. Their populations don't spiral out of control because of limiting factors, which our civilisation currently lack.

Apotheosis, i guess.
Also, in answer to your cute pic:
1. Cancer cells don't have to worry about developing technology fast enough to survive the death of a nearby star.
2. At least cancer cells are alive... the uniformization of resource allocation that happens in non-capitalist doctrines is akin to cellular death, even universal entropic death.

...

Why do commiecucks pretend to be anti growth? One of the main premises of (((socialism))) is to develop the "productive forces" that are supposedly held back by capitalist inefficiency and anarchy. To be fair there are many insane neoprimitivist champaign socialists but this is just so autistic it is the polar opposite of socialism

You know that not everyone opposed to capitalism is a communist right?

Whats the best proven alternative to capitalism?

Yeah but they are still using marxist "scientific" analysis and critiques. So what is it does capitalism immisarate the workers by keeping production artificially low or is it producing too much stuff hurting our precious mother gaia? Also I have seen many regular sovietboo orthodox marxists use the overproduction meme argument.

National Socialism

>I would guarantee that if there were no market, each individual would work according to their own benefit.
Or they would, like, create market, like they did....

Tha'ts bullshit. Reactionaries criticized capitalism for decades before Marx decided to publish his verbal asspain.

NS is just maximum centralization. Its horribly inefficient and splits the resources of the nation considerably. Just look at how all of the branches of the military were fractured and independent. Even the army was split between the Wehrmacht and SS. NS in Germany was kept afloat by seizing the gold reserves in the neighboring countries. Had Hitler not annexed Austria the economy wouldn't have survived for long.

NS has the best aesthetic by far though.

The difference is that reactionaries disliked capitalism because it potentially allowed anyone to become rich and powerful, while reactionaries in the 19th century thought that power should come from your lineage only.

>horribly inefficient
>NatSoc government performed an economic miracle, turning a battered Germany into the most fearsome war machine the world had ever seen
>every other country in europe had to fight together to stop NatSoc Germany, and it still was close
>Organizational redundancies in the German military have anything to do with the economic policies of NatSoc
And you're totally right, they looked crisp as fuck

Not really, reaction is radically against fetishization of material goods, which both capitalists and communists are guilty of.

>When will they do that? How?

they've been doing it since the "homeowner economy" by ripping each other off and cheating everyone

Very nice argument you got there pal, it's like you didn't even read the dude you're replying to.

Still capitalist as all hell

>ah hates 'em smart folks, what they do up in they so called labrotories and offices anyhowz, it all airheaded ballyhoo I tellsya, airheaded ballyhoo, yessir, yeehoo

Infinite profits.

The fact that they're importing the third world to increase the amount of consumers and low wage workers is scary. They'd destroy whole societies to maximize their personal gains.

found the self hating rich kid.

seriously, fuckoff, you little bitch. most people can't afford a mercedes or iphones every year. and nobody is forcing you to appreciate those things. consumerist culture has more to do with stupid people being stupid, than anything wrong with capitalism.

>37 types of cereal and name brand clothing

are you slow? what does that have to do with anything? why is that a bad thing?

low wage workers pay less in tax than they receive in welfare and since pushing for more immigration is a collective decision, business leaders will be looking for the collective benefits, that's not the reason

t. Kaczynski

Anybody else ever get the idea that this website is just one big cluster-fuck?

I also just realized that this thread has no coherent premise. Maybe that's why I can't tell what the fuck is going on.

maybe we are not incoherent and scatterbrained, maybe we are 2smart4u and you can't keep up

China's already starting to catch up and surpass the US in some areas like quantum communications, and when they get their project to economically integrate Eurasia going we'll see some serious shit. Meanwhile the US just keeps sinking in its own shit socially and economically, though Europe will also have problems for generations with their refugees. The assertion that chinks can't invent anything by themselves is a myth.

Great men suffer greatly. In order to move forward, we must endure the suffering. Happiness are the blank pages of history.

Hahaha, nope. Even Tesla, the 'messiah' of benevolent corporatism, are lobbying to abolish the common ownership of outer space, even when resources such as the iron asteroids are so rich, that it's really idiotic to just benefit a few people instead of the many. Not to mention how expensive the procedure would be for a single country to extract the iron from the asteroid, let alone a bunch of companies.

The TPP could have secured the US hegemony throughout the Pacific, but Americans don't want it because they value freedom above all, freedom for them and for other countries, as they said no to that fake imperialistic prosperity program. I salute them for that.

Cancer is a malignant growth, not a true growth.

>business leaders will be looking for the collective benefits
>Business leaders care about the collective
kek

The US is more economically developed than any European social democratic shithole.

paying more tax certainly isn't in the collective interests of their particular strata

I am prone to anxiety easily so happiness sounds pretty good.

>lower government corruption
fucking kek

>>NatSoc government performed an economic miracle
more like a sleight of hand. that "miracle" was bought with borrowed time