Has capitalism been the greatest force for good in human history?

Have a look at the Bronze Age command economies of the Ancient Near East and then come back and say that.

>conflating scientific progress with capitalism

>saying all this bullshit when manufactured consent, conspicuous comsumption, rise of the surveillance state, global warming, race to the bottom outsourcing and immigration and 08 exist
Posts like this makes me wanna be a tankie. Fascists may get the gulag, but neoliberals will always get the bullet.

i think what you meant to say there was technology? or perhaps peace?

This. Not perfect but superior to others.

>literally conceding his point
Well, thanks for trying

No system is perfect but it's a hell lot better then millions being slaughtered or starving to death. I'll be waiting for your bullet, user.

Both brought about by neoliberalism

>halve proportion of population living in poverty since 1950
>while tripling world population

So the absolute amount of poverty increased then?

As much as i hate command economies, those worked pretty well for hundreds of years, through some pretty nasty stuff, until the clusterfuck of the Collapse.

Sure but you excusing the unexcusable, sprouting such lies when all those stuff I listed disprove your shit. Nothing is worse than someone making the intolerable tolerable

>tfw

What if I told you that wealth isn't something that is fixed and finite therefore it's not the rich people's fault that some people have less money not that it can't happen but it always has its own reason.

Lies? What I said is my opinion. An individual freely offering a good or service they created isn't something I view as wrong.
If anything, I find it quite odd that you'd blame the free market for societal issues that have no direct link with capitalism. Do you really believe climate change, government surveillance, manufactured consent wouldn't exist if capitalism didn't?
These are problems not exclusive to one economic system.
I could very well pose the same statement to you that you yourself are excusing the inexcusable.
It's fair enough that each of us have weighed the pros and cons and have come to different conclusions. That's just the way the cookie crumbles and I respect you for your beliefs.

How is it wrong to argue that the Earth's resources aren't finite? Are you high?

All of those happened despite Neoliberalism, not because of it.
Also
>race to the bottom outsourcing
lol

It's a meme indicator, just like commies ramble about "muh GPD per capita".
Yes, the chinese guy who's throwing himself off the factory building now earns 1.15$ per day, instead of 0.90$, therefor breaching the 1$ ceiling.
Woop-ti-doo.
>Both brought about by neoliberalism
Not really.
I've yet to meet 1(ONE) "economic miracle" that's been brought by the implementation of specifically neoliberal policies.

What if I told you that social inequality leads to a lot of social ills? And that this pic shows that people perception of stuff are always gonna be shit?

But this are problems magnified or even ignored by capitalism. Shit on Soviet proporganda, but they have pretended they are anything other than that and do not manufacture consent

>excusing the inexcusable
I ain't excusing shit unlike you

On its own no, in combination with the industrial revolution yes.

>society should strive for economic miracles
You know they aren't inherently a good thing, right? And it's perfectly possible to develop a country without a fast surge in growth.
But if you want an example, Deng Xiaoping embracing a freer market and opening China to the world, consequently leading to the creation of the second-biggest economy and the largest drop in poverty rates ever experienced by a single country. Not to mention the spillover effects it had on other nations.

>If everyone bought from ethical businesses tomorrow many of Capitalism's problems would cease to be.
Pure utopianism. Capitalism cannot exist without value exploitation.
>Moreover, workers are free to unite within the structure of the free market and form workers co-ops.
"The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur – a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving."
>These freedoms to do and be whatever we want cannot be found in the two fringe ideologies pic related.
Literally no ideology calls for people to do anything they want.
>I highly doubt society would be where it is today without people being allowed to do what they do best - create. The human spirit yearns for freedom
It's almost like labor is the expression of our species-mind and that we should not be forced to create soley to appease a capitalist.

slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html

>And it's perfectly possible to develop a country without a fast surge in growth.
It was just an extreme example.
Fine, very heightened economic growth, due to EXPLICITLY neo-liberal measures.

>Deng Xiaoping embracing a freer market
Bitch, that's why i didn't say "less commie" or "freer market" or other vague terms.

China doesn't work just because they stopped being so pants-on-head communists, because it was just communism making way for some less retarded state-sponsored and regulated socialism that lets it's citizen more off-the-leash economically.

No, i'm saying some economists deciding to apply the austrian school, or whatever other die-hard capitalistic ideology loose upon a country or region, and it working out.

Do you have an explicit example?

Lenin is dead. His corpse is now a capitalist tourist attraction next to Moscow's financial centre. There is porbably a mcdonalds not far from there.

>not refuting anything I said.

It's great until artificial superintelligence and autonomous corporations become a thing. Your atoms are better utilized to compose these paperclips.

Social ills like conformism? That's the most dangerous after hunger and coldness.

Capitalism is a wasteful system for harnessing genuinely useful forces like technology.

Trotskysm has never achieved power anywhere ever. The world revolution was a delusion he tried too hard to believe in.

The idea that ideologies make revolutions is literal idealism. Moreover, you keep changing the subject.

I love how global poverty rates have been falling almost exclusively due to Chinese and Indian policies which have repeatedly gone against neoliberal principles but somehow we have to thank neoliberalism for this.

>Capitalism cannot exist without value exploitation
Considering that value exploitation doesn't exist, I don't see how that's true.

If ideologies don't make revolutions, marxism has no purpose.

>2008
>not the poster child for neoliberal economics

How can two different types of goods be exchanged if value does not exist?

"Neo-Liberalism" is great and all, but such a system can onto thrive on a constantly growing pyramid scheme.
And the pyramid is starting to crumble.

Not really. Neoliberal economics is not a real term t b h

Communism is not a state of affairs to be established but the real movement that abolishes the present state of things. It's the concrete expression of the needs of the working class.

Where are the cracks?

Did I say value doesn't exist?
No, I didn't. I said "value exploitation doesn't exist", as in, the marxian concept of exploitation is nonexistent, because it rests of a wrong theory of value.

Not capitalism as much as globalization. Remember when every leftist was extremely anti-globalization since people assumed it would lead to more extreme poverty around the globe since corporations would have an easier time abusing cheap labor? You don't hear anything from them anymore for obvious reasons.

If you admit value exists there's no logical way you can declare workers receive the full value of their labor (and hence are not exploited).

Political cynicism and apathy, crimes in general, mental illness and anoime etcetera

And made far worse by neoliberalism.

Communism is a pretty concrete concept in Marxism of a specific state of affairs. And if it expresses the needs of the working class (or at least believes it does), why have all "revolutions" has been forced over by educated, upper-class men and not a single one brought about by spontaneous working class people? And why do walls always have to be built to prevent people from escaping?

>not knowing the Russian Revolution was kick started by working class women
>not knowing that Lenin and Stalin were working class as fuck
The only 'revolutionary' that I can think that fits your description is Rosa

"Capitalism is raping the earth" is a meme argument spouted by vegans and virtue signallers. Adam Smith's tragedy of the commons proves capitalists enjoy preserving resources.

Do you think Lenin would also try and jump over the Berlin wall to avoid the monstrosity he had created?

>Lenin
>creating the GDR
That question is irrevelant to the fact that you are wrong in claiming that revolutionaries were upper middle class

Not him but Castro too. Overall the revolutions have been started by lower class people though.

>all these people demonstraring their love for socialism

>there aren't anti-capitalist demonstrations ever

Without a doubt.

>got BTFO with your history revisionism
>b-but muh Berlin Wall!
Damage_control.jpg

Who would win:
>All the might of the USSR
>A supermarket

>Until the planet's resources are raped to oblivion
Then we'll move on to rape other planet's resources

>when the country that survived WW2 with its industries and population relatively intact out produce the one that did not
Kek, even your whataboutism is shit

All western-european countries, plus Japan had better living standards.
By the way, the red stars on those tanks stand for "love".

>All the countries that received financial investments from that country turned out better
Wow color me surprised

>For a long time, on the plane to Miami, he sat motionless, his head in his hands. ‘What have they done to our poor people?’ he said after a long silence.” He added, “On his return to Moscow, Yeltsin would confess the pain he had felt after the Houston excursion: the ‘pain for all of us, for our country so rich, so talented and so exhausted by incessant experiments.’ ”

nytimes.com/2007/04/23/world/europe/23cnd-yeltsin.html?pagewanted=all

>not knowing the Russian Revolution was kick started by working class women.

And almost kick out too

Did nothing wrong

Behold the victims of capitalism

>in a socialist society, the environment wouldn't be exploited to benefit the few! Our natural ecosystems would be preserved for the good of the collective!

>One person's feelings overrides the material difference between USA and Soviet Union

>people always point towards prosperity in the first world as an example of the wonders of capitalism
>despite the fact that the so-called luxury we live in only exists on the exploitation of the third world

That's the way it's always been senpai, all the way back to the Roman Empire and their exploitation of the agricultural class living in the less developed provinces.

I like how socialists need to include things like imperialism, WW2 and the fucking Korean War to try and make a point. Nevermind the fact that Marx defended imperialism as a means to bring undeveloped nations a step closer to socialism.

>don't true socialism :^)

By improving living standards in the third-world, you mean. By a noble prize winner:
slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html

>posting old memes
Socialists do love living in the past

Marx wasn't right about everything. You know he isn't a prophet right?

>Marx contradicted my own point on capitalism thus Marx is wrong

Maybe you guys should consider changing the name of your ideology, then.

That pic's so old you forgot to edit Venezuela out after its fall.

No no
the protestors are evil because they want to eat

>being a Marxist means agreeing with whatever Marx said or did

>Marx advocated X in regards to socialism
>Nah he's wrong on that but I'm still a Marxist

>being a Christian means I can disagree with Jesus

>Everybody in a movement must agree on any and everything, however minor or major

left wing ideologies had a long historic tendency to dogmatism, marxist use the words "revisionist" or "reactionary" to any opposition. Reminds me the christians with the heretic persecution stuff.

That sounds pretty major. Especially if your own followers make a 180 and critisize that position as one of the worse things your opponents have done.

>Marxism is a religion

And yet when someone points out a disagreement between Marx and marxists, you ignore it to confirm your biases

far-left people still see capitalism as a huge improvement over feudalism, only that it isn't the final stage in human history

stop being a revisionist

If you're ignoring key parts of Marx's socialist theories then you're not a Marxist. Pick another socialist ideology that fits you since there's dozens out there.

>I cannot read or understand greentext:the post

>And yet when someone points out a disagreement between Marx and marxists, you ignore it to confirm your biases.

See

It is not even a key part desu. Repeating your non-argument doesn't make it any less false.

There is nothing wrong with neo-liberalism and capitalism. Money give me happiness

>dialectic materialism isn't a major part of Marxism
?????????