A Third Way

A capitalist economy dominated by large highly regulated cooperatives.

"Capitalism" doesn't reduce anyone to anything.
Food and shelter don't fall into your lap, you have to work. That's nature.

I agree with working for things, but it reduces people to economic units in the sense that it takes money from main street and moves it to Wall Street. It favors the multi-national corporation over the mom and pop shop by it's lowest common denominator mentality.

Unless you're AnCap you can't say gutting communities culturally and socially by having home depot on the highway run John's Hardware shop down the street is a good thing.

>it reduces people to economic units
That's life for you. You work or you don't eat.

Weird feudalisim

Take the schizophrenia pill.

But there's more to life than that. Family, community, and nation for a few. That's why I'm looking for a third way

fucking Christ, I may already have.

At least I did I one point. Freaked me out there for a second.

Why should I be forced to favor the mom and pops store on the main street? It is great that you dislike multi-national corporations and wall street, but what does that have to do with me?

That is what Capitalism does, trying to defang will only slow down the process not stop it

Are you part of a community? A town? How many people do you know in that town?

How do you know your neighbors if you don't have common meeting places like the local mom and pop store?

Exactly my point, which is why I'm searching for a third way.

And my point is there is no third way, capital will tear down whatever shit you try to restrain it eventually. You might as well be swimming against the tide

Deistic Meritocratic Neo-feudalistic Keynesianism.

The Church, through the guise of property and ancestor worship, owns the means of production and requires full employment regardless of the work available, re-managing resources according to the amount of work granted to individuals. Individuals who produce more are given more work.

fascist girl is the only good answer. don't understand why she'd be a terrible cook and half ass housework though. capitalist girl sounds insufferable desu

But it wasn't this way until corporations started growing to the levels they are now. We had a general concept of "main street" for centuries.

I couldn't figure out why fascist girl is bad cook or half assed housewife either. Fashy girls would be trad af by definition.

I did get a hearty kek out of commie girl being a good cook tho

I don't know, Fascist girl sounds like the better person, but Communist girl sounds like the better wife. Capitalist girl is clearly the worst of the bunch, though.

>Is there a third way?
No. Capitalism is good.

I am surrounded by a community but was never allowed to be a part of it. There are plenty of small businesses but it is all overpriced.

Capitalism and globalism, for all its flaws, at least allows me more options in life. I can go to Detroit and get paid far more than I am worth cleaning up crime scenes, I can go to Thailand and fuck ladyboys, I can go to Peru and lead an easy life teaching english, drinking coca tea, smoking cannabis and marrying a chaste catholic latina.

>was never allowed to be a part of it
explain

>dominant personality and steps on you
>negative
pick one

Not all of us are low T betas like you

MakiMaki is not a slut.

Your mistake is thinking recent developments are a perversion not a continuation of capitalism. FDR's reforms was a 'perversion' of sorts and it is all dust now

While playing strategy games with her would be fun, I'd prefer a more submissive girl who's a good housewife.

I acknowledge it's a continuation of capitalism, which is exactly why I don't want it and am looking for another way that isn't communist/socialism.

God, how many times do I have to explain that?

i'm monitoring your thread from a staunchly pro-cap perspective.
I have to say I admire your persistence and clarity marxistbro. You can eat at my dinner table anytime.

BUT I'M NOT A MARXIST!

The problem with anything Marx wrote is that all he saw were economic units! There's numerous problems with socialism/communism, but my particular one here is that is will ultimately destroy small town sized communities and extend outward toward the nation. He wrote himself that the only way communism can work is if the work all at once exploded into communist revolution and everyone everywhere lived by it's doctrine.

Unless you can come up with an economic system that is post-capitalism like socialism, but the things that you want ITT is more capitalism with a human face than anything post-capitalism

>capitalism with a human face
yeah, I like free markets up to the point it starts hurting the country on a cultural and societal level

What you're really saying is you like free markets until they become un-free, which is the result of government collusion with corporations. That's not an issue with capitalism IMO, it's support for the ideal of Perfect Competition.
Any direct gov't meddling with economics should have the purpose of striving toward that ideal.

Not him but free market is like chocolate, it's tasty but eat too much of it and you'll get obese. I have no idea why free market is being held as the most sacred thing that overrides everything else.

What's so high T with only being able to deal with people if they are submissive?

>eat too much of it and you'll get obese
Elaborate. I bet you'll find we only get "obese" when perfect competition is undermined.

Fuck literally me

Did Google get a monopoly through government intervention?

>dominant personality
Not necessarily a problem even if reastically a balanced personality is better.
>steps on you
You can be sexually turned on by that but outside sex it's shit. (and even sexually wise, most dominant girls are into abstinence and cuckolding anyway)
Not that submissive girls are better if it's to the point you must be their father.

Not him but why unrestrained free markets would be ethical and government interventions would make them unethical?
Libertarians say that all the time but they never explain why they believe that and it's far from being self-evident to me.

Libertarians are just Jew/corporate shills holding borderline religious moral views.

porn has very little government involvement.
it has less do with the state, and more with a moraless society that worships only pleasure and themselves. capitalism only exploits and accelerates this behavior

fucking weeb

Syndicalism.

>You have Capitalism and Communism.

Capitalism is not a political ideology

Unless you've been living under a rock you must have seen people excluded from society. It happened to me when I was 16 and my mom died. I lapsed for a few months, my grades dropped, I skipped some exams, I still had a year left and I would have turned myself around and caught up, however they decided not to give me a chance and immediately got rid of me thus fucking up my education, career prospects and the rest of my life.

I am not an ancap, some taxes should go to orphanages and so forth. It sucks when a business fails, however a business exists to make profit, someone starts a small business because they don't want to gut fish or clean dishes the rest of their life like most other poor people. The idea they are special snowflake victims and welfare/charity should be diverted from abused children to them is laughable, as is the idea the community is inherently good. If I wasn't a victim back then and didn't deserve any help, as the community decided, then you certainly aren't a victim.

Why in my right mind would I ever willingly serve the community? It would be the height of cuckoldry. If anything I am a cuckold for not being as hostile and belligerent towards people as the majority have been towards me. I still blame myself, I still don't consider myself a victim compared to people who have it far worse, I still give people the benefit of the doubt despite being taken advantage of, I still recognize I am privileged and lucky to have been educated up to the age of 17 before the community decided to flush me down the toilet and should be thankful for that even though I wasn't treated like everyone else, I still sympathise with other people's minor problems even though no one gives a shit about mine. However I can't bring myself to support something so obviously morally vacuous. I would only be reinforcing your severe delusions.

/rant

>Fascism likes to pretend it's a unique 3rd way, but instead it's merely all these far more complicated labels that still amount to a 3rd way.

>having this level of reading comprehension
Veeky Forums is sinking to new lows

>Marx created/popularised market economy operating under self ownership and property rights

God damn I hate the left.

>both terms popularised by marx
marx used the term "capitalism" (kapitalismus) like a total of twice in the entirety of his work.

>only dealing with submissive
It's not only dealing with submissives, but being the submissive yourself

Perhaps the creator chose this trait to show that she is experienced with basic life (as in, life from before the industrial revolution), without restaurants and the like we have in modern society.
You have a good point however. Communism and food don't go hand in hand.

>capitalist degenerate had a shitty childhood
Sorry for your life my dude, but that's not a valid argument to support the destruction of all that's good in the world. Your hatred of community is only an externalization of hating yourself.
Seek forgiveness and reconciliation in Christ.

You forgot some ChristChan, user.

>says something quite sensible about fascism's place within the political spectrum
>replies are just directed towards the 'anime girl choice: political edition' attached
Never change the fact you are a Veeky Forums board, Veeky Forums. It is beautiful

He never expressed support for that though.

He did support capitalism which is the destruction of all that is good in the world in Sorry

How does capitalism entail that?

Through the subjugation of man to economic production. All that matters in capitalism is shekels, fucking over other people for shekels, and fucking over the land for shekels. All the problems we see today are not necessarily a result of capitalism itself, but rather the materialistic ideology that is present in both capitalism and communism.

Please substantiate your claims more concretely. The vagueness of your claims is "monay is ebul" tier.
By the way, you can have hobbies, be religious, engage in your community and so on. Capitalism isn't stopping you.

Unironically fascism is the best third way.
No it's not a mixed authoritarian economy.
Fascist can make left or right policy decisions depending on what is most necessary for the national identity to be nurtured at the time.
Leadership is not decided by nepotism and bribery but a form of meritocracy where if you as an individual fit the national bill mire than others then you will be able to get ahead.
I see no problem here.

It is creating an environment where that increasingly becomes untenable.
The main focus of capitalism is profit, not the well being of the nation.
If A company felt it was more profitable to work somewhere else, thereby moving both their jobs and their innovations out of their country, under capitalism they would and often do.

Recent example would be how tech support for t mobile recently outsourced to God damned Malaysia or some shit.

And you could sometimes do those things under communism. Don't get me wrong I would prefer to live under capitalism but they are both ultimately flawed.
Capitalism is inherently based upon money and nothing else. Do you not think this could lead to ethical problems?
Capitalism doesn't offer anything but these illusory and ultimately false ideas of progress, an almost deification of economic production, and the valuing of man based upon his monetary worth.
Capitalism has been destroying religion, and communities for a while.
>religion
By replacing the church as an institution with money. Capitalism inherently leads to manipulation of the moral system towards mindless consumerism to maximize profits. Modern propaganda methods were invented and used by capitalists.
>communities
By buying up land, making housing difficult, forcing everyone to work for someone instead of traditionally being able to work their own land. During the process of making it impossible to be self sufficient, they establish factories that pollute the air, water and soil. I work at one of these places so I can see this shit first hand.

Everything is left to the will of the financial elite, and they have no other ethical incentive but money.

Anarcho-syndicalism

Fascism is not a third way, it's just a government openly aligned with corporate interests and repressing class conflict.

My only problem with the fascist system from what I've been seeing is what happens when you get the wrong guy in charge? That's the greatest concern I have when it comes to Nat Soc too

Master Vucic

Class conflict is a meme, there are always going to be rich and poor, it's entirely natural. The problem is that capitalism is the rich over the poor and communism is the poor over the rich. To have a strong nation we need all the classes to work together and help each other. The rich help the poor by providing fair work, and pay more into welfare, and the poor help the rich by working on their capital. The whole is greater than the sum of it's part.

I think that argument is put into perspective when you realize that democracy relies on everyone (or at least 51%) to be good, while monarchy, authoritarianism, aristocratic republics, etc rely on one or a small number of people to be good, which is more likely? A strong leader is less likely to be subverted than the ignorant masses.

>communism is the poor over the rich
Your understanding of communism is a meme. Maybe if you said socialism that would be less stupid

>The problem is that capitalism is the rich over the poor
So is fascism. Using state power to suppress class conflict and maintain status quo benefits the rich, this is obvious. Yes, even if you throw some breadcrumbs to the lower classes, capitalism already does that.

>I think that argument is put into perspective when you realize that democracy relies on everyone (or at least 51%) to be good, while monarchy, authoritarianism, aristocratic republics, etc rely on one or a small number of people to be good, which is more likely? A strong leader is less likely to be subverted than the ignorant masses.
Both are equally likely if the small number of people is a sample from the total population. Except you have more variance with a small number, so it's probably worse. And letting people suffer their own mistakes instead of the mistakes of some vanguard has merits of its own.

Communism in every nation it has been attempted involves liquidating the bourgeoisie (aka rich) blood through bullet holes. Even in it's pure form it's forced equality by mob rule. In reality it always ends in an even greater amount of wealth inequality than capitalism.
Class conflict is artificial. Revolutions have been supported and propped up by wealthy bankers, equality is a meme sold to the masses so an even greater amount of inequality can be enforced. Conflict between nations has been a more important factor than conflict between class. The "status quo" is too vague to mean anything, but fascist economics is different from capitalism.

>Both are equally likely if the small number of people is a sample from the total population.
But they aren't. The kind of people that became leaders in fascism are different than the masses, in monarchies and traditional republics the aristocrats and nobility were very different from the masses.
>and letting people suffer their own mistakes
No that's a horrible idea, the current state of affairs is this way in some part because of that. The masses can be manipulated to do just about anything.

Capitalism doesn't have a goal. People do.
Furthermore, who is to determine what benefits the nation? Who says that the nation is this monolithic entity that share the same interests?
>Muh corporations outsource jobs
And in commies' view, a company owner that doesn't outsource but gets rich as fuck while his employees get a portion of the profits entails injustice and capitalism's rule over the people. Not that I agree with them at all, my point is that what benefits people is subjective and arbitrary and so is what constitutes fairness in an economic system. Who is to determine what the most benefitial system to a collective of people is? Capitalism, for all its flaws, is still the system where mankind has had the highest standards of living.

>Class conflict is artificial
>Revolutions have been supported and propped up by wealthy bankers
Ah, I see. You're a /pol/tard that just repeats shit, this is a waste of time. Class conflict is ubiquitous through history. Yes, national conflicts are too, I'm not a marxist.

>The "status quo" is too vague to mean anything, but fascist economics is different from capitalism.
It is a subset of capitalist economics, in which the capital is still privately owned, but capitalists benefit from not having to deal with the conflicts it generates.

>But they aren't. The kind of people that became leaders in fascism are different than the masses, in monarchies and traditional republics the aristocrats and nobility were very different from the masses.
Please do tell where they come from and though which magical process they became naturally more "good" compared to others. I'd like an explanation of how would this magnanimous small ruling class be created and reproduced through time, and the counterweights it would have in case everything goes to shit as it has every time.

>Capitalism doesn't have a goal
That's wrong, it does. It's profit.
>who is to determine what benefits the nation?
The nation. It is a monolithic entity, how do you think it formed in the first place? This argument hinges on the idea that people don't have collective interests based upon their group, which is false, they do and always have.
>Ah, I see. You're a /pol/tard that just repeats shit, this is a waste of time
Nice argument. It's historical fact that bankers funded Bolshevism and to some extent the french revolution.
>but capitalists benefit from not having to deal with the conflicts it generates.
But they do, they aren't allowed to profit near as much and they have to pay their workers a fair wage as well as provide decent working conditions. The workers typically have special labor courts where the state can step in and shut down or nationalize an industry if need be and the workers also usually get special state programs for education, vacation, etc. The capitalists are also usually capped in how much profit they can make and the rest goes to the state.

>Please do tell where they come from
Evolution actually, more or less. It's way more nuanced than that, but without going into more esoteric stuff, that's good enough. How do you think nations formed in the first place? In Fascism, some people are naturally more fit to be leaders, others aspire to be great leaders. In terms of aristocracy, the aristocratic children are taught from day one how to rule, what their duties to their people are, etc. People aren't equal and I don't know where you get that idea from.
>counterweights
The nation degenerates and dies, like we are seeing all around us.
>goes to shit as it has every time
It went to shit once the monarchies went away. There literally isn't a more stable government system than a monarchy.

>Nice argument. It's historical fact that bankers funded Bolshevism and to some extent the french revolution.
There are a fucking million examples of class conflict through history, the fact that you sperg about this does show that you're a /pol/tard repeating shit. But bankers funded the soviet union after the revolution, not before, as they do with every country. So no, they didn't create class conflict out of thin air.
You can find class conflict in societies as soon it develops further from the most primitive of economies. Take the following example from anthropology (taken from Sahlin's "Stone Age Economics"):
"Many kings have been put to death by the people because of their oppression of the makaainana [the commoners] . The following kings lost their lives on account of their cruel exactions on the commoners: Koihala was put to death in Kau, for which reason the district of Kau was called the Wier. Koka-i-ka-Iani was an alii [chief] who was violently put to death in Kau . . . Enu-nui-kai-malino was an alii who was secretly put out of the way by the fishermen in Keahuolu in Kona . . . King Hakau was put to death by the hand of Umi at Waipio valley in Hamakua, Hawaii.23 Lono-ika- makahiki was a king who was banished by the people of Kona . . . . It was for this reason that some of the ancient kings had a wholesome fear of the people (Malo. 195 1 . p. 195)."

>But they do, they aren't allowed to profit near as much and they have to pay their workers a fair wage as well as provide decent working conditions.
Which doesn't mean it's not capitalism. Hell, it's a small price to pay to avoid the threat of radical changes. By that logic a social democracy that expands the welfare state wouldn't be capitalist. I'm a social democrat myself, I'm just not deluded enough to pretend the system I support is not capitalist in the end.

>Evolution actually, more or less.
If you're saying that the ruling class has evolved apart from the general populace, you might actually be retarded.

>without going into more esoteric stuff
Holy shit, you are.

>In Fascism, some people are naturally more fit to be leaders, others aspire to be great leaders. In terms of aristocracy, the aristocratic children are taught from day one how to rule, what their duties to their people are, etc.
You didn't explain shit. You didn't explain how those "naturally more fit" or how those to be aristocratic children are chosen, nor how those the class reproduce itself.

Fascism is the third way and look how that turned out. Seek a fourth way.

fucking fine, a forth way then

The fourth way is islamic anarchism.

>Any direct gov't meddling with economics should have the purpose of striving toward that ideal (perfect competition)
So basically Distributism

How does Communism reduce the individual to nothing but labor units?

Anthony Giddens literally wrote a book about "the third way" but it coincided with Tony Blair and Bill Clinton claiming influence from it so it was probably just as vapid as their governments. the subtitle of the book was "the renewal of social democracy" but in practice governments declaring themselves to follow the third way were the final death of social democracy.

nonetheless actual social democracy as we had from about 1950 to about 1975 was the third way and it was great.

>giantshit
/d/ go home

>, you have to work. That's nature.
>You work or you don't eat
this isn't true though
have an uncle who is a landlord
outsources the actual management of the properties to a company and has had regular spells of just living off the rent.
he literally does no work and eats with rents extracted from other people. he didn't build the houses, he doesn't maintain the houses, he does nothing except collect money for having the deeds to the houses.

>fascists
>intelligent
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Commie is the best choice tbqh, bit conflicted about the loyalty/submissive difference between the two contenders though, capitalist is bredy awful

>dominant personality; likes to step on you
>hates anyone who isn't her/your race, even your friends
>red