Writes a bunch of shit

Why the fuck do edgelord shitposters defend capitalism when it does nothing for them and causes nothing but inequality, exploitation and suffering??

Communism has killed 100million+ people. Just sayin'

...

I guess you'd rather go to a work camp, or live as a feudal serf.

It's called having principles and not only being out for gibs, you fucking nigger.

>imagine being this retarded
I am sad now

I personally know people who are worse.

Carl struggled in vain at the ropes that tied him to the chair, still fighting even though the facts of the matter were such that he could not possibly escape:

“How dare you do this? Communism is the end of History, the whole of humanity will embrace it. My death stops nothing.”

Max leaned in and eyeballed Carl. Carl stopped moving.

“You encounter yourself as an object among others, however rather than embrace your own self, you abase yourself before a pedestal upon which you simultaneously stand, you cloak that which is upon the pedestal in such deliberate disguises; State, Morality, Compassion, Duty, conjuring these up from within you. You deceive yourself into believing that that which is upon the pedestal is something else, something Other. Then when you completed this process of self-alienation you prostrate yourself before it and go ‘I am moral, I am better because I serve a cause and not just me!’ You are broken and hollow, you have deceived yourself into giving away your own freedom.”

Max turned and walked away, his footfall echoing like the drum that is beaten as a convict is hanged. He lit a cigarette and flicked the match onto the gasoline that had pooled on the floor. Carl’s screams were drowned out by the whoosh of the flames.

The cool night air embraced Max as he walked out. He could sirens in the distance. He turned, finished his cigarette, and stepped off into the rest of his life.

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1510512522378.webm

...

Wow look at all these non arguments

...

Actually friend this is an argument.

Here's an argument: time and time again capitalism has brought more prosperity and freedoms than almost any attempted socialist country.

I don't get Marxist/commies in the West today. They call themselves anarcho-communists and non-authoritarian/anti-authoritarian communists but why should I trust them on they being anti-authoritarian? Karl Marx explicitly called for violent action and the use of terror in order to achieve communism. And also, you can't say you're anti-state but then call for a communist revolution in which the state redistributes wealth. Why are they so fucking retarded?
>Oh trust us this time, we'll be different. We won't be greedy or motivated by power or for selfishness. It won't be like in Russia, we're the good communists.
Bullshit. I don't believe them.

Yeah, but the state will """"""""wither away""""""""

> Karl Marx explicitly called for violent action and the use of terror in order to achieve communism.

When ? where?

Maybe you are thinking about Lenin?

Switzerland is that you?

bump

Not the guy you're replying to, but didn't he call for a dictatorship of the proletariat?

Anyway all revolutions are directed by an aspiring elite with a particular vision for society, which is why they inevitably end in bloodshed and terror when society is revealed to be far more complicated than that vision allows for.

>Inequality
Nothing wrong with that. I like hierarchy and so long I am given possibility of elevating my status, I am content with it.
>exploitation and suffering
Part and parcel of living. Get over it.
Capitalism is for greedy people, socialism and communism are for envious bastards. I work to be better than others, not to drag them to my level.

I was the guy that asked this question. I was going to bring that up, but you stole the words out my mouth. Yes I am pretty sure that Marx did call a dictatorship of the proletariat and yes revolutions tend to be a very bloody and horrendous affairs. That's why I don't trust the intentions of today's communists.

>today's communists

FALGSC Ain't free. The halls of power gotta be littered with the blood of the bourgiouse. Noam the GNOME Chomsky is not my comrade. he is fashion anarchist and probably cointelpro as well :DD MLM and revolution NOT Anarchism and Female ceos ok. Praise Stalin.

loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html

Fucking this!

Capitalism destroys EVERY SINGLE THING I love in this world, Veeky Forums has a lot of luck to not being eaten by Capitalism for now.

>when it does nothing for them
By deciding to choose a higher-paying chemical engineering degree I am making fucking bank. Capitalism works pretty well man, especially when tempered with welfare. Hell, Finland did way better than all the other baltic states (especially the ones that came under soviet rule).

Yeah I'm a philosophy grad but I worked my arse off and got a job in a financial institution and I love it. It's not hard as long as you're willing to put in the effort.

A dictatorship of the proletariat could be used to describe any direct democracy, are the swiss authoritarian murderer's becasue they could feasibly change the law to allow someone to hang?

Population control is good though.

It's also what's caused the practices like loosened immigration restrictions for cheap labor driving down prices and wages while not keeping up with inflation.

Globalisation has driven the cost of goods down faster than wages. This is not even debatable, try and tell me what a flatscreen TV would have cost 50 years ago.

They don't.

>Yeah I'm a philosophy grad but I worked my arse off and got a job in a financial institution and I love it.
Really user? I've been thinking about switching to philosophy because I hate my current major. I'm doing finance and I find it boring, but I felt like it would give me the best return on my investment. I mainly want something practical to do after graduating and maybe pursue a masters or something in the future, but I figured I couldn't find anything like that with a philosophy degree. I wanted to work in a financial institution as my main job right out of school, so do you think I could find a job in one if I did philosophy as a major and maybe finance as a minor?

I'm from the UK and if you're talking major an minor I assume you're a burger so I don't really know how it works over there but I doubt it's impossible. In the UK where you go to uni matters much more than what you actually do while you're there.

He didn't like going to work Mondays and was a crybaby mangina

How much would a wife cost?

You're not wrong. Marx was hardly the first socialist and communist theorist, and he certainly wasn't the only materialist communist or socialist theorist. He just wrote was at the time the most comprehensive body of theory with a materialist economic basis.

It's worth noting that at his time, he had major competition from other socialist movements, anarchists following proudhon (and later, Bakunin) were a big force, for instance.

get a fucking job

I don't know ask your dad

Are goods constructed to the same standards they once were?

>this is what commies actually believe

lel, you realize $20 DVD players cost like $1500 when they came out, right? your comparison is shit.

Don't know, is your TV still black and white?

Of course not, but it wont have anything resembling the lifespan the black and white TV I had a child would. Part of the process of cheaper goods we see now is that goods aren't as well constructed (overbuilt some might say) or designed to be repaired like they once were; replacement for a better model in a few years is the expected norm.

The point is that a flatscreen would have cost millions as you would have had to develop it yourself.

>I had as a child*

But even if your flatscreen only lasts a few years by the time it's dead you'll be able to replace it with something even better for even less money. Over the past few years we went from 1080p to 4k, imagine what will be waiting in a few years time.

And what happens when the entire world (all 7+ billion of us) starts consuming goods in this fashion at a comparable rate?

Nigga you can't even sew yourself a shirt. I don't see any relevance this has to the conversation.

That's literally the point. Capitalism and globalization have allowed you to own a wide variety of goods you could never have produced yourself.

The demand will drive the price down even more and goods will become better and cheaper faster.

>The demand will drive the price down even more and goods will become better and cheaper faster.

And what of the materials required, and the environmental impact of this sudden boost in industry? Endless consumption and growth is impossible, something is going to give at some point.

Why is endless consumption impossible? We live in an endless universe after all.

>Why is endless consumption impossible?

Because there is not endless materials to consume or endless space in which to put our waste (even firing it off into space will still pollute the hell out of our planet).

> We live in an endless universe after all.

Aside from the fact we're not certain of that point, the fact is that interstellar colonization may not actually be scientifically feasible, even within our own solar system (look up the difficulties of colonizing Mars or the moon, and how every hypothesized means of doing so handwaves them away) let alone beyond.

What happens to us if it turns out that we can't leave this rock?

Yeah I'm from the US. I have family working in the financial field and some friends going into the field too so I feel like if I at least had a minor in it and a major in something else that isn't meme-tier I'd be able to if you were able to make it. Thanks for the advice man I appreciate it.

It's not about getting a job, it's about stuff like Half-Life 3 will never exist and more.

Why is it always a G*rman?

Look I've really got to get back to work but at no point in history has humanity ever reached the sort of bottleneck you're describing. Even if it does exist, and there is no empirical evidence that it does as it hasn't happened, then there is still no reason to believe that we are even close to the maximum sustainable population of earth.

Equally, as countries develop birth rates drop and so do emissions per capita. This is why the rate of increase of global pollution is slowing. With better technology this process will only accelerate.

Even if the universe isn't endless, for the foreseeable future it might as well be (I doubt that we will reach a universal resource limit within the next few thousand years). In which case we're debating about about something that is far beyond the limits of what we can debate about.

If interstellar colonization is at all possible then at some point it will become humanity's best option, and then at that point it will happen because it will be the option with the lowest opportunity cost. To argue against this you would have to argue that not only is it impossible but even with technological advances it will never be possible. I do not think you would be able to successfully argue this point.

>Look I've really got to get back to work but at no point in history has humanity ever reached the sort of bottleneck you're describing. Even if it does exist, and there is no empirical evidence that it does as it hasn't happened, then there is still no reason to believe that we are even close to the maximum sustainable population of earth.

The maximum sustainable population is not the same thing as the maximum population that can consume disposable goods at the same rate the first world does. The lack of an empirical basis for there being a resource bottleneck is moot, because empiricism isn't the only way to learn things (it's also a very limited one, see how we can't observe causality with it, for instance, further empiricism itself cannot be empirically verified as valid). Besides that, we've come up to critical resource shortages before (the shortage of wood as a burnable fuel before the discovery of coal comes to mind).

>Equally, as countries develop birth rates drop and so do emissions per capita. This is why the rate of increase of global pollution is slowing. With better technology this process will only accelerate.

Unless we can reach a point where it ceases or reverses the point stands.

>Even if the universe isn't endless, for the foreseeable future it might as well be (I doubt that we will reach a universal resource limit within the next few thousand years). In which case we're debating about about something that is far beyond the limits of what we can debate about.

This is assuming we can leave this planet at all.

>To argue against this you would have to argue that not only is it impossible but even with technological advances it will never be possible. I do not think you would be able to successfully argue this point.

I don't really have to, because it's being taken without sound basis as a matter of faith that we will, even though the difficulties present within it seem insurmountable.

>demand increases by 6 billion and prices go down