Well? is it accurate?

Yes, because redistributing buying power from those who have proved themselves worthy of possessing it, and therefore are most likely to use it responsibly, to those who are the exact opposite, meaning not only have they not proved themselves worthy of it but are the least likely to manage it responsibly, is not a perversion.

>redistribution of wealth
>the government partly distributes wealth and buying power instead of it being exclusively left to the market
>capitalism
Okay retard.

By this I am a marxist-leninist, and that ideology is one of the ideologies I hate the most. (I hate liberalism a bit more)

Fascism is anti-capitalist, what the hell are you talking about

> redistributing buying power to those have not proven themselves worthy is bad, said the capitalist
> meanwhile, capitalist societies are ripe with inherited wealth, trust fund babbies, interest rate babbies and baby boomers living solidly off real estate booms.

People who inherit wealth are also likely to inherit some good qualities of their ancestors who made that wealth.
Also, they're certainly likely to be more responsible than people who inherit no wealth and are poor enough to use welfare.

[citation needed]: the post.

But I'm not surprised. It must take a special kind of mental gymnastics to both argue that capitalism is moral because it fosters healthy competition, while living off daddy's trustfund

>implying that the genes which were responsible for the creation of that wealth weren't inherited by the child
>implying that the values which were responsible for the creation of that wealth weren't passed on to the child through parenting
>implying that the man who generated the wealth is at all relevant in how it is used by those which he himself has authorized to take advantage of his wealth how they see fit
Why? If a man has contributed disproportionately to society to the point of his contribution being enough to justify the maintenance of those who happen to inherit his wealth by society then where's the problem? Seems like the problem is that it is not you who benefits from it. Who are you to dictate how a man invests his time and effort?

>implying intelligence doesn't correlate with socioeconomic status
Also, look above, first point.

I never said I wanted to dictate, nor that I even wanted to change the system.

I'm merely pointing out the vast hypocrisy of claiming that capitalism inherently always rewards the skilled, talented, virtuous, etc. when that is patently not the case. Wealth can just as easily be inherited or acquired through interests, which takes no skill whatsoever and is in fact the very antithesis of the sort of social mobility that a capitalist system is supposed to create.

But whatever, keep telling yourself you deserve that silver spoon while others work with ten times your work ethics and intelligence are stuck in the gutter.

>tfw Minarchism

Does this mean I'm retarded?

Are you retarded? What's the deal with you senpai? You are not happy with inheritance laws but if we defined worth as having yourself generated the wealth that you spend any wealth left behind by anyone ought to be destroyed because no one that could possibly receive it would've worked for it, because if they had they would already possess an identical amount.
>acquiring wealth through interest takes no skill whatsoever
What the actual fuck? Are you not entrusting someone to invest your money in whatever way they see fit in exchange for a cut of the profits they'll make, if they do? Deposits are literally loans to the bank. Is being rewarded for making the right decision to loan to someone who will be able to properly take advantage of your money and the risk involved in that immoral now? How is there skilled involved in banks doing it for people but not in the reverse?
Also, how does inheritance and interest not promote social mobility? If someone is not worthy of maintaining his inheritance while trying to do so/is not interested in maintaining it then he moves down the socioeconomic ladder and his losses contribute towards those who are worthy of being higher than where they are to do so.

These things never fucking are, stop asking retarded questions.

I find this one to be more interesting

>fascism
It has no economic axis. Fascism is class collaboration + totalitarianism + nationalism.

>activism
No position at all. ISIS were activists.

>liberalism
Liberalism can include this graph's "authoritarianism", conservatism, progressivism, libertarianism, activism, left-libertarianism, social democratism, "statism", and much more.

>totalitarianism
Can exist in any square of the compass. The up/down axis of the political compass doesn't measure authoritarianism, it measures a combination of conservative/reactionary social policies and restrictions on freedom/privacy. SJWs would be considered near-anarchists on the compass.

>nationalism
Can exist anywhere on the compass

>fundamentalism
Can exist anywhere on the compass

it's just a trash image in general