Where did capitalism go wrong?

>fake capitalism still ends up with millions of surplus homes and so much food they literally have to throw out the extras at the end of the day so they don't go bad
>fake communism kills everyone except for the 1% and renders farmland barren

>anti capitalist
>in 2017

kill yourself for the better of humanity

...

kys

>that anarcho-cuckoldist flag

I was waiting for a chance to use this one.

someone still owns those houses, so I don't see the problem

>hierarchy is cuckoldry
I don't even see the parallel.

Argue with these people instead

>that pic
So what? The world doesn't revolve around the poor, nor does the economy exist to provide the poor with unearned amenities. The homeless are literally worthless people; what happens to them is not important.

They don;t do i either.

>when even a lolbertarian finds OP's pic absurd

>Real capitalism is something like Hong Kong.
Oh bitch please the housing shortage is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy worse

That's not what I was talking about.
>bitch
Go talk to your mother that way.

>"Live Right And Do What Is Good "
>-Nah we are free, this is subjective, give us freedom
>"Ok!"

FASTFORWARD 10 YEARS

>Booo we are poor give us free stuff
>"Well you can have it but you will have to work and get your life together"
>NO, GIVE US FOR FREE!
>"No Deal. I gave you freedom, now you have to give me the same freedom. Nature made me work, God made me be a good citizen, I told you to do the same then and now, yet you don't, nor you want to respect my freedom with the stuff I earned. I will give you some charity like I always do, but by your nature, there will always be more that you need, and your hate for me will only grow until nature puts you out of your misery"

Think if what I just said is true.

Nice edge.

At lest all this deaths can solve the overpopulation problem a bit :^).

when it consumed art

youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME

Wouldn't giving away all those homes destroy the value of all homes and cause a horrific economic collapse worse than the great depression? You might as well skip the middleman and just give everyone $500,000

You mean the city where half the population lives in public housing?

Some people are natural failures and should just die off. Its ok to bail out some one a few times if they go down on their luck. I think that is just human kindness and creates good societies where people trust and care.

Then there are people who are nothing but vermin and no matter how much you help them they cant help themselves and end up biting the hand that feeds them.

Is this the kind of autistic edge that creates ancaps?

>classcucks always whine about communism killing bazillions
>when they're showed the number of deaths caused by capitalism they don't know how to respond
Poetic

>I have no home
> I am too lazy to homestead a piece of unowned land
>I am too lazy to work
>Therefore it is moral for me to steal the houses other people own
Solid commiefag logic right here

Mix spooks and 0 understanding of economics and you get this.

>ppl are por cuz dey dunt wurk
People work, yet they remain poor.

Do they work at jobs that will secure them capital?
Just because your work hard, doesn't mean you deserve a lot of money. You can break your back hauling bricks, but in the end, any number of empty minded navvies can carry a hod. With that kind of work you're not in demand, and when you're not in demand, people can just hire a person willing to take less.
The architect who employs you will make more, because where 1/10 guys can carry some bricks, only 1/10,000 will be able to organize the construction that employs them.

It wasn't real capitalism anyway.

The figure is obtained by basically looking at every death in a capitalist country that wasn't old age.
It also basically assumes that every country starts out at the same level, and pretends like the fact capitalism has proven infinitely more effective at pulling people out of poverty than communism (eg China, South Korea, etc) withou the dictatorships, humans rights violations and mass famines that are inherent in every single attempt at socialism (as opposed to only some capitalist countries).
A highly dishonest figure that doesn't really deserve a serious response, because this is self evident to anyone with an IQ over 50 (aka, all but commietards).

Nowhere, it just hasn't turned into communism yet.

When you want something, it's because you deserve it. When someone wants something else, it's because they feel unjustifiably entitled to it.

Communism was never meant to pull people out of poverty, Marx made it perfectly clear that only a developed capitalist society could successfully implement communism.

Daily reminder, as retarded as an capitalism is, it's still less retarded than communism.
At least what amounts to some kind of feudalism has examples of successful socieities. Communism can't even manage that.

Why would a wealthy society want communism? If capitalism is already working for them.

And it never will.

You say that as if communists know anything about economics.

If they did, they wouldn't be communists.

Because it would end economic oppression and wealth inequality by redistributing the "country's" wealth to the actual entirety of the country instead of to a tiny elite.
For what reason won't it?

Capitalists certainly don't know anything about economics. Capitalism worked long before anyone tried to come up with systems to explain how it worked. A good thing for it, too, because capitalist "thinkers" are a joke.

That doesn't change the fact that you can work a full time job and yet still remain poor, which in a consumer economy is detrimental to the health of the economy.

And while an architect should be compensated for the specialization of his field, not everybody is going to be an architect. This is where Randian philosophy falls apart. Not everybody is going to be an entrepenuer or an architect or an engineer. The majority of people are going to be burger flippers and janitors and labourers.

This idea of a capitalist world where everybody is an enterprising capitalist in waiting and if you're not its because you're just too lazy is fiction. The majority of your market are the poor and it will remain as such.

>everyone in the country gets hundreds of thousands of dollars
>price of everything is astronomical since money doesn't seem to mean anything anymore
>much more homelessness
>much more starvation

Great idea.

>For what reason won't it?
Because we won't let it.

I really shouldn't reply to an ancap, but I'm gonna go ahead and tell everyone else not to so we won't have to waste anymore time with you.

>most people aren't very intelligent and won't earn a lot of money

How many decades of communist thought did it take to reach that stunning conclusion?

If your lack of knowledge concerning communism is so total that you think it amounts to taking money and giving everyone an equal amount of it, then there's no point in having any kind of conversation with you. I hope some day in the future you're able to look back at your current self and either laugh at or feel embarassed over your stupidity. Good day.
It's a pity then that you aren't replying to an ancap. I guess you're just completely wrong about everything, aren't you?

This. And it's fucking criminal to me that as a (bong) taxpayer, I HAVE TO own part of RBS, etc. I'd rather say fuck 'em, I keep MY money in a sensible and responsible building society.

Firstly I'm not a Communist, secondly that has nothing to do with my post.

Thirdly, communism is based pretty much on that fact. The entire basis of communism is that capitalism will increasingly turn to automation for cheaper and more effective labor, creating a massive population of unemployment that will require socialism to stem. So I'd say none as this was what Marx wrote about.

I can be as wrong as possible, but communism will never take foot in my country.

So I win regardless.

Well, no. Communism doesn't have to take root in any country and you can still be dumb as a door knob if you're going to discuss communism and its viability without knowing the first thing about it.

Even if you entirely disagree with the concept of communism, you should educate yourself on it so you can at least argue it properly instead of looking like an idiot on a Cambodian shadow puppet forum.

>classcucks always whine about communism killing bazillions.
>when they're showed the number of deaths caused by capitalism they don't know how to respond

I don't denial those deaths comrade, perhaps you need to do the same. At least the nazies and pinochet fags embrace the idea of genocide of their enemies but you commies like present a good guy face and pull the victim card just like the stromfags. Only tankies seems to have the balls to admited.

>muh OP CIA ninjas porkies destroyed my proletarian paradise muahhhh.

>implying global communism wont kill x50 that

its outdated

it worked well till obtaining capital was tied to working, making new things, till it was a catalyst for advancing

we passed that phase, i dont know whats next but its going to change

Your entire ideology is about prostrating yourself before a strong bull

I've never met a fit fascist

Not him, but literally all skinheads I know are buff gym rats.

So in real capitalism it would be forbidden for one private entity to give money to another private entity? Because that's what government bailouts basically are, once you realize that the government is effectively a private entity.

So just let those houses become a slum for the poor then, that's still an improvement compared to having homes be unused while people are living in the streets.

>I don't understand it, therefore its proponents don't either

The problem is that resources aren't being allocated for the greatest public good.

Why would it destroy the value? There's still a limited quantity of homes, the whole idea isn't that you're setting a price ceiling for homes at $0, it's that you're ruling that a house that isn't lived in for X months becomes public property and is reallocated to the poor.

>there is an infinite supply of unowned land
>there is an infinite demand for all forms of human labor
>working guarantees you will be able to afford buying a house

Because capitalism isn't working for the proletariat. Marx had a fairly linear understanding of history, believing that capitalism was a neccessary prerequisite for Communism. He never expected Communism to arise in Russia or China, and if someone told him it would, he would say it is doomed to failure.

"economic collapse" is meaningless, what matters is shortages, and this wouldn't cause a shortage since neither is less being supplied or more being demanded since the houses were already made anyway

there would of course be a drastic shift because people would have to assemble to ensure that the goods they made are still used to prepare for the future ofc but that's still not the same thing as a shortage

I'd say people who live in the West and are still homeless clearly have some kind of mental illness and could only be kept from the streets through assisted housing. In Europe they literally give you housing for free if you just ask for it. So if you can't manage to do even that, then well, the problem is with you, not society.

You solve this by making education and work mandatory for the home.

If you want subsidized housing, food, etc, you must work and you must complete classes intended to educate you on being a responsible member of society.

You fuck up: You're evicted and temporarily suspended from the program.

Start small. A few hundred people around the country. Modify it as it grows.

>Simply existing means you are entitled to things you don't earn or build yourself

when will this meme end?

I don't know about capitalism™ but democracy surely went to shit with central banks and fiat currency.

Soon, my comrade, will the shackles of capitalism be removed.

this is more accurate desune

I don't get it.

Isn't that fuedalism/slavery? You get free stuff but must do work?

Unless it's voluntary to enter into this system. Then you just invented capitalism.

Capitalism only existed in the north of the United States during a short period of the 1920's for the rest of existence it has been a hope but not reality

Cucking means letting someone else fuck your wife, or in a metaphorical meaning, letting someone else destroy your country, race and your culture. There is absolutely nothing cucked about recognizing authorities, do you feel like a cuck when you go to the doctor and rely on his decisions too?

Without the capital accumulation and technological progress of capitalism socialism is doom to fail a, this is why all the attempts to make a socialist society ending in a giant state capitalist to compensate, like China or URSS.

Name 1 planned economy that has ever worked.

Taiwan

>the government is effectively a private entity

No, it's not. It's bound by different laws, can tax citizens, is publicly elected, and is democratically accountable. A private entity is none of those things.

>is publicly elected, and is democratically accountable. A private entity is none of those things
Sure it is, through the consumer's choice :^)

Capitalism is good until Jews exploited it

...

South Korea?

>real capitalism hasn't been tried!

>exploited it
You mean created it.

He mentioned it's been tried in Hong Kong, are you just pretending to be stupid?

Current day China

the various war economies countries engaged in in the two world wars were all pretty good and they were engaged in producing equipment to blow people up with, not producing capital for further production. if they had fallen for the free market meme they would not have been in shape to develop to that extent

prc, nazi germany, ussr industrialized pretty fucking fast

even the nominally capitalist countries in east asia that had such dramatic booms were because of corporatism, not liberal free-market capitalism

...

>caring about anarchists
It's the saddest of all political ideologies, because not only does it fail at a theoretical level, it's also historically irrelevant.

Capitalism can't go wrong. There is no right or wrong in capitalism. Think about it.

Adam Smith was writing down what he observed, not devising a new system to be imposed top down by a revolutionary cadre.

Capitalism began in a world where theft was the natural state, random vikings could land on the coast and loot everything at any moment. It emerged because artisans can't produce goods and traders can't distribute them (or won't) if they get robbed at every turn. The next challenge is to facilitate transactions between actors in a market. Again, like property, any solutions begin at the bottom where fraud is the norm. Currency, banks, insurance, corporations and everything we have come to know and love exists because they went some way towards solving this problem. Events like the housing bubble and the south sea bubble are merely a regression to the mean.

At every turn capitalism does nothing but solve perennial problems, it emerges from the trash heap and the commie points and says "look, he's in a pile of trash" as though capitalism is to blame.

Dude what?

Houses would be much less in demand if the government just handed them out for free.

Consider the Peace Corps in Africa. I got a buddy who was in in Cameroon. He could not convince one of the locals to even try his farming methods and get his act together, because the local saw no need. All he had to do was wait, and some big NGO charity would come and hand him all kinds of farming equipment. He had no need to earn any of it himself when UNESCO will happily give him it for free.

*sigh*
It seems this concept is a little too high brow for Veeky Forums, let me tone it down a little.

Capitalism isn't a utopian vision. It is the result of people trying to solve real world problems. So it doesn't make sense for OP to ask "what went wrong".

If your neighbor finished building a mailbox and it does its job you wouldn't ask "what went wrong".

Just because it doesn't solve every problem in the world doesn't mean there is something wrong with it.

>*sigh*
Stopped reading there. Fuck off back to Gaia or Tumblr or wherever your newfag ass crawled out from.

But jew-bashing is traditional in marxism.

>those sources

Someone never wrote a basic research article in college it seems.

>because not only does it fail at a theoretical level, it's also historically irrelevant.
Tell the citizens of Hamburg that.

>Kropotkin on jews png
you know he's Bakunin, right?

These people didn't die because of Capitalism. They died because they were too stupid and lazy to play the game.