Is this a good way to open a story?

please dont

No, double periods are an abomination

knock knock
whos there?
gommunims :DDD

Should there be 3

GREAT WORK OP

>communists literally cant into logic
>hey think this example is analogous
LMAOing at the tiny brain in you head m8

holy... I want more...

I just stole this for my book and I just got approved for publication lol thanks for the boost op I will put you in the acknowledgements do you want to go by user or Anonymous?

Four for good measure.

is this ironic, or is it an actual "haha you're so stupid"

The most successful people tend to be very much aware of the intense moral injustice of their wealth. This either leads to Musk/Gates types, who try to make the world at least a little better or Murdoch/Soros/Rockefeller types, who will literally steal hearts from dying children.

thats what I thought until I read zizek

>Bill Gates–software mogul and philanthropist–is the icon of what he called “frictionless capitalism,” the post-industrial society in which we witness the “end of labor,” in which software is winning over hardware and in which the young nerd has replaced the black-suited manager. In the new company headquarters, there is little external discipline, and (ex)hackers dominate the scene, working long hours and enjoying free drinks in plush surroundings. In this respect, it is a crucial feature of Gates as icon that he is (perceived as) the ex-hacker who made it. At the fantasmatic level, the underlying notion here is that Gates is a subversive marginal hooligan who has taken over and dresses himself up as a respectable chairman.

>Liberal communists are big executives reforming the spirit of contest, or, to put it the other way round, countercultural geeks who took over big corporations. Their dogma is a new, postmodernized, version of Adam Smith’s invisible hand: Market and social responsibility are not opposites, they can be employed together for mutual benefit. Collaboration with employees, dialogue with customers, respect for the environment and transparent deal-making are now the keys to a successful business.

>Liberal communists are pragmatic, they hate ideology. There is no single exploited Working Class today, only concrete problems to be solved, such as starvation in Africa, the plight of Muslim women or religious fundamentalist violence. When there is a humanitarian crisis in Africa–and liberal communists love humanitarian crises, they bring out the best in them!–instead of employing anti-imperialist rhetoric, we should simply examine what really solves the problem: Engage people, governments and business in a common enterprise, approach the crisis in a creative, unconventional way, and don’t worry about labels.

>Above all, liberal communists see themselves as true citizens of the world, good people who worry. They worry about populist fundamentalists and irresponsible, greedy corporations. They see the “deeper causes” of today’s problems, the mass poverty and hopelessness that breed fundamentalist terror. So their goal is not to earn money, but to change the world (and, in this way, as a by-product, make even more money).

The catch, of course, is that, in order to give it to the community, first you have to take it (or, as they put it, create it). The rationale of liberal communists is that, in order to really help people, you must have the means to do it. And as experience–the dismal failure of all centralized state and collectivist approaches–teaches us, private initiative is by far the most efficient way. So if the state wants to regulate their business, to tax them excessively, it is effectively undermining its own official goal (to make life better for the large majority, to really help those in need).

inthesetimes.com/article/2574

continued
>However, is any of this really something new? What about the good old Andrew Carnegie, employing a private army to brutally suppress organized labor and then distributing large parts of his wealth for educational, arts and humanitarian causes, proving that, although a man of steel, he has a heart of gold? In the same way, today’s liberal communists give with one hand what they first took away with the other.

>This is what makes a figure like Soros ethically so problematic. His daily routine is a lie embodied: Half of his working time is devoted to financial speculations and the other half to humanitarian activities (providing finances for cultural and democratic activities in post-Communist countries, underwriting the movement in the United States to get public money out of private elections, coining pejorative terms like “free-market fundamentalists”) that ultimately fight the effects of his own speculations. Likewise the two faces of Bill Gates: a cruel businessman, destroying or buying out competitors, aiming at virtual monopoly, employing all the dirty tricks to achieve his goals … and the greatest philanthropist in the history of mankind.

>In the liberal communist ethics, the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity: Charity today is the humanitarian mask that hides the underlying economic exploitation. In a blackmail of gigantic proportions, the developed countries are constantly “helping” the undeveloped (with aid, credits, etc.), thereby avoiding the key issue, namely, their complicity in and co-responsibility for the miserable situation of the undeveloped.

>And the same goes for the very opposition between the “smart” and “non-smart” approach. Outsourcing is the key notion here. By way of outsourcing, you export the (necessary) dark side–low wages, harsh labor practices, ecological pollution–to “non-smart” Third World places (or invisible places in the First World itself). The ultimate liberal communist dream is to export the working class itself to the invisible Third World sweatshops.

>inthesetimes.com/article/2574
Oh wow, Zizek wrote something that didn't make me cringe. That's a new one.

Thanks. I'll take a look.

I still think it's mainly conjecture tho.
A part of Sudden Wealth Syndrome is that the "afflicted" suddenly "switch sides" and vote more right wing than they did before.

I'm a bit more skeptical of the human condition under capitalism than most would think.

Capitalism doesn't knock on the door.

>tfw capitalism has increased the wealth of poor people more than any other system could ever hope to

"I have a funny knock knock joke, but you have to start it."

i'm poor as fuck but lets be real now, i work like 20 hour a week max, often half that, and here i sit in an air conditioned room staring at a 27 inch 4k monitor that i can see crisply thanks to my disposable contact lenses while listening to an infinite catalog of streaming music over my high speed residential wifi and sip freshly brewed coffee imported from who knows where... being poor sucks but this is pretty fucking great t b h still have suicidal ideation everyday anyways

OP is like a baby. I'm writing a story about bureaucracy.

You are the 1% of the world

>Murdoch/Soros/Rockefeller types

>Murdoch
>Made people take journalism seriously with FOX news

>Soros
>Supports good causes like BLM, trying to rid oppression from blacks

>Rockefeller
>Funded universities

I'd rather have more of the later than the former.

Not capitalism per se. The free market system.
But by now the social market economy more so.

I write to make my friends laugh, don't think i'm being serious

The horrible thing is that there is about a 25-33% chance that you are for real.
And that type of thing reminds me of Socrates' opinion of democracy.

>social market economy
>more so
False, Read Mises and Hayek

How are your infant mortality rates going, m8?

It looks like a godamn shitpost

how?

OP here, just going to assume that it's a good start.