How can capitalism be stopped when there are people who willingly act against their own best interests?

If he doesn't make his money renting other people's labor, he is working class according to Marx.
Leonel Messi is working class, yet a filthy rich man.
His agent, a poorer man, isn't working class, because his wealth is the result of Messi's labor.

Class =/= money, its about labor.

>Hes not blue collar so he cant support the working class

Well Marx was a shithead. Don't get me wrong I agree with most of the S.W.E.A.T. pledge but Rowe is being a bit deceitful here since he's probably never done much real work in his life.

>real work

Work is work.
If you are doing it yourself, its real work.
If you are renting other people's work, and thats your "work"...

If he invests his money for interest, he is technically buying part of the ownership of the means of production and extracting surplus value from the laborers.
Most means of production are not directly owned nowadays.
Hiding behind a bank or an investment broker doesn't mean that you're not profiting off other people's labor.

Yes but he's specifically speaking for blue collar workers when he obviously fucking isn't one.

Hard work. When he says 'real' work, he means work that fits the proper defintion, aka work that takes effort and tires one.

A teacher does a lot more work than her student, although the student is the one who produces.

>pic related
>Capitalism
More like how do we stop neo-liberalism ?

We must debunk the neo-liberal discourse and spread the message through education
Memes debunked so far:
>"trickle down economics": wealth flows from the top to the bottom of the society
>we all have the same opportunities in life
>"genetics" or "race" are valid categories
>you can get through anything by pure focus, hard work and power of will
>inequalities are natural, not politically instated and historically situated
>...

We read Pierre Bourdieu, again. Then Foucault, then Bourdieu again...

Capitalist countries feed socialist countries.

Why do you want everyone to starve to death?

But socialism is inevitable comrade :^)

/leftypol/ bait aside, that's should sound like bullshit even if you support capitalism.
Some of what he says is good but some of them are insane.

>I am a product of my choices - not my circumstances
Your choices do matter but only up to a point. It's not your choice to be born in a shit country or shit region of a country. He even says he's lucky to live in America.
>never whine and complain; everything bad is YOUR fault
Yeah, man, never try to chance something bad in others or the system, just take it or try to be "happy".
>all people are created equal
Tell that to people with birth defects.

I think this type of American bullshit is the result of how polarized things are there. You seems to have a whinny "Left" does indeed have the "gibsmedat" philosophy and as a reaction you get these "libertarians" going "lol dude, just work and be confident you lazy faggot and never complain".

If your only arguments are nitpicking you have no arguments
How stupid do you have to be to believe that Mike Rowe is addressing people with birth defects or victims of real tragedies? You are simply saying things to be mad, to stay mad. Why do you not acknowledge that such a poster is for people who are capable and with desire to work and fulfill themselves? Instead you propose asinine arguments, as if Mike Rowe is flying to a village with no electricity in Tibet and telling the local cripple to get a job.
It seems the mere fact that someone suggested that there are things you can control and there are circumstances in your life you can change if you are willing to sacrifices e and work has struck a nerve. You should be more worried about that than anything Mike Rowe has to say.

*tips revisionism*
>a neoliberal capitalist country imports most of its food
>*crickets*
>a country that calls itself socialist imports food
>HURRRR SOCIALISM DOESNT WORK DURRR

I know this picture always pisses people off but let's be honest here it's good practical advice for low iq people whose only other alternative in life is mainlining heroin and ending up in prison for five years at a time.

what is the fundamental difference between slaver society and serfdom?

Capitalism is in the long term interest of most people on the planet.

It sorta is. But if you don't consider WHY it is so, your answer is a shitty straw, and you should be ashamed for posting such a weak statement.

And to even make the argument, you need to understand basics that you don't even need to use Capitalism as a argument, but "modern versus pre modern", where there is a core defining feature of Modern Capitalism that doesn't exist before it.
Its really simple: Modern times has serfs, and low labors engage in economic activity with fiat.

But since you made a shitty phoneposting oneliner: You need to defend why economic activity is "a long term interests to most people"

>mfw this post is made in the era of global warming, rising consumerism and global population

I would say that the question asked by op is just as stupid, but fine.

Captialism rather than allowing a bunch of robber barons to rape the ignorant poor, as actually constantly raised standards of living were it has been introduced.

That isn't to say its perfect or one size fits all, but on the whole its more helpful than not.

gees sorry for the typos there

Communists never offer any solution to global warming or overpopulation. Half of their reason for existing is elevating the truly impoverished of the third world to a first World level standard which would by default increase everyone's carbon foot print even more.

>implying communism is ANYONES best interest

>3 lines
>No arguments or even a attack angle
>That spacing

>whatabouting this hard
Feel free to make any arguments anytime

>How can capitalism be stopped

stop exchanging stuff.

>all system is capitalist, even socialism.

so where is your essay on the evils of capitalism and do you know what an argument is?

It won't. Capitalism is the future and Marx was just a delusional retard autist.

It's not a what about ism.

Communists have no solution to looming ecological collapse and they should really stop making pretend it's a problem unique to capitalism.

I don't understand the question. Capitalism is the system that's designed to take advantage of how common it is for people to act solely in their own interest.

What would you replace capitalism with?

>I don't know what is whataboutism and yet I will make no argument: the post
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I think his point is that there is social mobility for those willing to do hard work.

There is a social contract behind serfdom.

The problem is that people acting in their own interest tend to only care about the short term, and are very willing to "cheat the system".

Right, and capitalism is the system that's hardest to cheat.

>marxists pretending to know others interests

Real capitalism (which has never been tried btw) is the system that's hardest to cheat.

Even imperfect capitalism is harder to cheat than pretty much anything else. It's entire design is built around people looking out for their own best interest.

Yeah but capitalism only works if people look out for their own best interest AND agree to follow certain rules, like avoiding collusion and maintaining low barriers for entry. That's where the difficulty of implementing real capitalism lies.

>willingly act against their own best interests
But capitalism is everyone acting in their own best interests.

As long as no force is involved, that's usually less of an issue than it's made out to be. Barriers for entry are more likely to be regulatory in nature than consequences of capitalism, and collusion is hard to maintain in a competitive marketplace. Even the quintessential example of a monopoly, Standard Oil, was starting to crumble by the time it was broken up, because it's just not possible to be that large and nimble enough to keep up with new competitors at the same time.

>Barriers for entry are more likely to be regulatory in nature than consequences of capitalism
Because current implementations are highly regulated. Obviously, they wouldn't be so common in unregulated capitalism.

>collusion is hard to maintain in a competitive marketplace.
The whole issue of collusion is that it makes the marketplace uncompetitive in the first place.

I'm curious as to what kind of barriers you think would pop up in the place of regulations. And my point on collusion is that all it takes for the collusion to break down is for either one of the members to realize they can make significantly more money by breaking it, or a new competitor to show up and take advantage of the colluders' lack of efficiency.

>willingly act against their own best interests
By forming an intellectual vanguard to force the unenlightened proletariat to act for their best interests.

Stop pretending to be retarded.
Ay lmao

>I'm curious as to what kind of barriers you think would pop up in the place of regulations
The main one is when all the resources needed to run a certain type of business are already claimed by someone else - if someone does get into a position where they own all the coal mines in an area, it's for anyone else to compete with them for the same markets. And in the modern technology industry there's a major compatibility issue as well - you pretty much need to buy Windows if you want to run Windows software, even if you consider another operating system to be better. It's like if the brand of bread you could buy was limited by the brand of your toaster, or vice-versa.

Compatibility is less of an issue with open standards, but AFAIK there is nothing in a free market that would prevent a company from using non-open standards, meaning no one could make a compatible competing product without reverse engineering (which opens you up to lawsuits).

I could see issues popping up with extremely limited resources, but I think those same issues tend to happen in pretty much any system you design. The recent downfall of OPEC, though, strikes me as evidence that even legally mandated collusion in the field most ripe for it can be overcome by technological progress.

Non-open standards seem to me like another area where we have evidence of how capitalism works to find ways around the problems. You bring up Windows, which faces serious competition from both Google and Apple in the OS market, even ignoring the open-source standards like Linux. I'm not saying that capitalism will always be 100% efficient, and it can take more time than we might like for new solutions to these problems to be found, but overall it seems to be more efficient and less prone to the problems of power abuse than any other system I can find.

>You bring up Windows, which faces serious competition from both Google and Apple in the OS market
For the most part the competition seems to focus on the mobile market, which is basically Microsoft's weak suit. It's not that Windows is the only OS out there, but as far as PCs are concerned, and especially PC gaming, it is pretty dominant, and that's not likely to change unless someone can come out with a Windows-compatible alternative, since even with the recent push for cross-platform games, leaving Windows will mean you lose access to a lot of old and established software. Not really sure what the solution would be, but there might be more choice for the consumer if the PC gaming market was better divided, rather than Microsoft having close to a de facto monopoly.

That's an interesting and more specific question. I guess we'd need to start by asking what Microsoft does that adds inefficiency to the PC gaming market. The failure of things like the Ouya suggests that it just might not be enough to take advantage of.

This. Too many people are going for bullshit degrees in fields that aren't growing.

There's nothing wrong with learning a vocation.

He is absolutely right you morons. Stop pretending real life is fantasy were you can just implement a system that gives everyone free money.

neoliberalism aka liberalism is the ideology of capitalism if there ever was one.

I think your argument is flawed here.
Its not "legal collusion", its more like "accidental tech monopoly by medium parties".

At first look, the argument presented can be rephased to
>due lack of knowledge, its not possible to go for a reasonable solution
>Hence bigger corporations can get entry to unrelated startups by existing
>i.e considering rent of CNC machines where parts is manually made, is not considered in favor of CAD software + CNC and hire 2-3 more people, or buying parts
I would argue that Windows + Intel as bundled mandatory costs are a result of defacto standards combined with excessive marked effectivity(actually quite high). Which also means the breakout of US Oil to OPEC, or the migaration away from OPEC, means: Somebody is sitting down, considering the cost of using a standard, and realizes there is a HUGE COST involved.

Also please kill yourself. Anything you mention, don't even go near any sort of markedshare in terms of profit or computer marked.
Windows is sorta like a cat in a lions garden. Still a huge cat, but small next to it is dumb hardware /w software(routers, electronics), server stuff(10-200x bigger marked), and phones.
The Desktop as Windows + Intel platform, is by itself completely irrelevant, and might even die to a consumer shrink.
Sure Microsoft as a corporation will live for another century, at the least: But the Desktop marked IS SMALL, and you don't showcase a understanding of how little its real marked impact is.

>their own best interests
your a dorable

Even that is no longer a guarantee of a job
Simple fact is that jobs are disappearing and even having vocational training is no safeguard against declining wages and fewer job opportunities.

>willing to do hard work.
Rowe isn't exactly the kind of person who exemplifies that value. In interviews about his life, he's always pretty flippant about things he's done, and usually says that he chose auditions to meet girls and stuck with easy jobs. He even had a reputation for complaining about his job at QVC live on air.

>Simple fact is that jobs are disappearing
I don't know why you believe this when American unemployment is so low right now

If communism is superior to capitalism, why do people always migrate from communist countries to capitalist ones, instead of the opposite?

People went from East Germany to West Germany, from North Vietnam to South Vietnam, from Cuba to the United States, from China to Hong Kong, from Venezuela to Brazil etc

Only intellectuals, ideologues and wanted criminals ever migrated willing to communist countries.

It was so bad that they had to build walls and prevent people from living.

Trade school isn't a guarantee against unemployment. Its a guarantee against the bottom of the marked.
So once you see it: A "helper" at any company do not compete in any way/shape/form against a certified professional. That said, if the local legislation is complete shit, its possible to acquire trade certification without half a years industry experience, or more.

Nevermind that the only guarantee against unemployment is cash & knowledge reserve combined with founding/entrepreneurship, everything else is a gamble on the local economy.

>reddit spacing
Noice.
Nevermind that living inside the sphere of Amerikan propaganda means you see more Amerikan propaganda. But that by itself means little, when USA wins the Cold War, meaning there is no more Soviet Union to spread propaganda.
And if you search, you will find people fleeing from anything. Be it neighbors, politiks, or the local police stares.

Depends entirely on the field. If you are born poor yet are exceptionally driven and talented, you certainly may attain social mobility. However, this is really unlikely because our economic system cannot support every single grocery store bagger becoming a stock broker.

>propaganda

The word commies always use when they don't have an argument.

If its Communist to admit that you need information to have a opinion about information, then Propaganda is the most Communist there is.
Or Capitalist if you are on the other side of the wall.

Communism isn't "the policies of socialist states", it's a completely different mode of production in which the working class controls the economy and wage labor is abolished.

This mode of production has never existed.

20to century socialist states were very good at developing their economies and lifting people out of extreme poverty, but they could never come close to matching the living standards of the First World, because the First World had access to a far broader market of resources. People didn't migrate to from West to East Germany because it had a lower standard of living. For the exact same reason, nobody migrated from West Germany to capitalist Panama. The standard of living was lower, even though the economic system was the same.

But people migrate from socialist Venezuela to capitalist Panama nowadays!

Gobbunism beat most of "The West" by a good margin, because it turns out there is a lot of shitty Banan republics outside of the central colonial states.
Its sorta what made Communism even be a thing to strive for, and what ever gave them propaganda even if they failed.

And while it was a success, the downsides where also horrible, because it turns out Stalin was insane, Revolutions are awful to life, and flat economies lead to disregard/hate for collective property.

It's unfair to compare communist Russia with capitalist Congo, though. Even if Russia was held back by an unproductive system, it was still more advanced than the Congo and it was hard to change that.

It's more fair to compare countries with similar economic developments, so instead of comparing Russia with "banana republics", compare it with Finland, which was part of the same state before the revolution and without communism ended up becoming one of the richest countries in the world.

By the same standards, capitalist banana republics should be compared with communist banana republics, and while I have to admit that some communist countries in the Third World achieved decent results compared to its neighbors, such as Cuba, others have been disasters, such as Ethiopia under the Derg.

And, of course, Cuba was more advanced than its neighbors to begin with, so it's hard to credit everything to communism anyway.

Hell, compare Chile to the rest of South America. Even in the worst situations, capitalism turns out a better end result than socialism.

Venezuela isn't socialist, just run by a lefty government

Their economy is plain ol' capitalism with certain companies run by the state

Not that they aren't trying to build True Communism™. It just failed like every other attempt.

counterpunch.org/2016/12/30/venezuelas-communal-movement/

nacla.org/article/communal-state-communal-councils-communes-and-workplace-democracy

That's not what the left was saying a couple of years ago

I must be old because I remember when American socialists and progressives applauded Venezuela as a model for the world

well workers have credit cards so they're technically using other worker's labor so...

North Korea's record of environmentalism is insanely better than any capitalist country. Even Western sources admit this.

theguardian.com/world/2014/may/20/north-korea-unlikely-champion-fight-against-climate-change

Capitalism will never be able to regulate carbon emissions by itself. If one capitalist decides to cut down on their emissions, that would put him at a competetive disadvantage - he will go bankrupt and lose his job. Only in a centrally planned economy can carbon emissions be cut substantially.

It's easy to have a small carbon footprint when you can't afford the natural resources to power your country

>implying

>North Korea's record of environmentalism is insanely better than any capitalist country.

How North korea can even contaminate when it's literally a ghost country?

>you can get through anything by pure focus, hard work and power of will
This is literally true. Most people are extremely lazy, if you're halfway smart and a very hard worker, you can do anything.

But that's not thanks to communism, you dolt. It's due to a severe lack of industry.
That's like saying medieval Europe had a minute carbon footprint so maybe feudalism is the solution to climate change.
The Soviet Union and China were/are the only communist countries whose level of industrial development compares to that of capitalist countries and they polluted just as much.

Are you crazy? NorthHkorea has a better environmental record because they are almost entirely farmland; the same as they've been for a thousand years. You're lucky to own a radio there.

That's like saying indigenous tribes offer the best course going forward to combat global warming because they produce so little pollution

1-10-11-12 contradict one another.

Fake news. Even Western media admits North Korea under Kim Jong Un is booming.

theduran.com/truth-north-korea-booming/

The South Korean Hyundai Research Institute estimates North Korea's annual growth to be 9%, making it the fastest growing economy in the world.

>that entire pic

>theduran.com
>not biased source

Hahahaha never change tankie.

>leftypol memes

Nice porkie pinko

Fucking Mike Rowe is the reason I signed up for an apprenticeship with the Operating Engineers. It's been months since becoming an accepted applicant, and I'm still waiting.

Haven't you learned anything? You can't sit on your ass and wait for people to hand you out things, more so a job. You need to be a self starter and rob that fucking office. Strip everyone of their valuables and stash those dollars in your wallet.

If you have internet access and still cannot educate yourself and find a way to earn an honest living then you deserve to be poor

>When a thread about criticizing capitalism becomes about Marx-Leninist countries
>mfw right wingers are using the most favored propaganda tactic of the Soviet Union to criticize it and its client states