Current Events > Capitalism gets brought up in every topic on this board

(+) Yeah! (+)

Arguably a big part of what fucks up capitalism is how people can inherit fortunes for doing absolutely nothing

In a truly free market, you would have to earn your success, not just be born into it.

Allowing old money to build up more and more over generations is creating major barriers of entry for people without that backing them.

Not against inheritance entirely, but there should be hard limits to break up what are essentially dynasties

ToteAll posted...

You think capitalist superpowers overthrow stable third world governments to mantain cheap outsourced labor?

And you think capitalism is the reason for this insane conspiracy theory?

ToteAll posted...

You're too naive.

Oh my god the irony.

ToteAll posted...

Wait wait wait.

You think capitalist superpowers overthrow stable third world governments to mantain cheap outsourced labor?

And you think capitalism is the reason for this insane conspiracy theory?

Yeah, no, people just want "accountability", amirite Dark_bro?

Wait wait wait....aren't you from Chile? Isn't that exactly what the US did to you guys? And your neighbors as well? Why are you so incredulous about it?

ToteAll posted...

You're too naive. You underestimate how massive the workload of true democracy is, and you grossly overestimate what majorities would do with that power. Majorities would just rule for majorities, unless you want some sort of world government in which 7 billion people each have a voice in every desicion. That's brilliant.

Your response is essentially that democracy is too hard and the people can't be trusted with it, and that it's better for businesses and the wealthy to have undemocratic, unaccountable power instead. That's a fundamentally conservative argument, even if you don't think of yourself as a conservative.

It's possible for majorities to wield power with safeguards for minority rights, especially when that power is built on strong social solidarity and mass movements. I don't favor world government as the solution, I favor smaller, likely subnational or regional governments or cooperatives working together to solve common problems in favor of our continued existence.

Sounds much better than BP and Chevron deciding that we don't need to know about climate change and blocking action to move to renewables for decades because they're still zuccing up profits.

Does ToteAll realize that he will never have sex or make money?

ToteAll posted...

By all means, examples.

Really not worth it.

There has been more of a re-evaluation of capitalism lately. it was taken for granted to be something of inescapable holy dogma for decades in the United States, Canada, and the UK.

I believe this is due to a few key factors:

• growing income inequality
• the information age allows the first world to see the exploitation of global poverty firsthand
• the great neo-liberal economic experiment has failed all but the wealthy

ToteAll posted...

I didn't expect someone to actually bring it up... but did you actually just call Allende's government stable?

I'm not saying it was perfect, but clearly the US didn't think it was gonna collapse on its own, otherwise they wouldn't have bombed the presidential palace to do a coup, then install a military dictatorship to crush dissent.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Again, highly regulated capitalism (which is hardly a "conservative" view) is the best humanity's gonna get, given human nature. Your fantasies won't change that fact.

We had that, or as close as we're going to get. It was killed by neoliberalism, essentially starting with your country. You don't want to change from what we have now, and the system of undemocratic control of economic power and thus political power is what we have now. That's what's conservative about it. You're saying the status quo cannot be changed due to human nature. That's THE conservative argument.

You're saying I'm spouting fantasies, but you're the one saying that we need to go from neoliberalism to "highly regulated capitalism", presumably without changing any of the structures that led us here in the first place. That's a bigger fantasy than socialism or anarchism. It's fathomable that we could get different results by doing different things. It's unfathomable that we'll get different results by doing the same things.

The mid-century "well regulated capitalism" we had still gave far too much power to capital. They used that power to create think tanks and economics departments to create ideologies that would benefit them. They were mad about the tiny concessions made to labor and regular people and they wanted it to stop and wanted more of the economic pie. They bought a political party and a half and infiltrated the entire foreign policy and intelligence apparatus. Then they fucked up your country, experimented on it, and exported that experiment back home to the US and Europe. Then they forced it on the rest of the world through propaganda, economic blackmail, neocolonialism, and when all else failed, outright violence. That's our current world.

You're not getting from where we are back to "well regulated capitalism" if capital gets to maintain their economic and thus political power. What's stopping all this from happening again? And the system where they don't have all that requires socialism or anarchism.

ToteAll posted...

Should I be surprised you picked the most predictable, vague and cowardly way out of this conversation?

No, youre just literally not worth talking to. No facts or evidence will change your mind, so the correct course of action is to just laugh at you.

ToteAll posted...

highly regulated capitalism (which is hardly a "conservative" view) is the best humanity's gonna get, given human nature

That's nice and all, but how does any society achieve this?

ToteAll posted...

Ask the Nordic countries...?

What do they have that other capitalist countries don't?

I would like capatlisim more if fraud was legal. Its only legal to exploit the poor, but the moment you exploit the very rich, it becomes fraud.

If you want to try and look like you're super duper smart but you're just repeating what other people said on the Internet, make sure you say "late-stage capitalism" instead of just "capitalism".

Unchecked capitalism is why I quit my last job

Fuck capitalism

ToteAll posted...

And yet much smarter, analytical and cooperative users than you are talking to me. Weird.

And theyre destroying your uninformed dogshit arguments while everyone laughs, great job

PesticideDream posted...

If you want to try and look like you're super duper smart but you're just repeating what other people said on the Internet, make sure you say "late-stage capitalism" instead of just "capitalism".

But for the galaxy brain, use socialism and communism interchangeably, and also treat economic theory like socialism as an opposing force to a governing structure like democracy.

We live in a communism

_____Cait posted...

We live in a communism

In the United States, we could not be farther away from communism.

At best we have a mixed economy, but largely dominated by corporate shareholder driven capitalism. It's not even up for debate and it doesn't matter how terrible you think capitalism or communism are.

We don't even have state managed health insurance in America. Billionaires like Elon Musk and Bill Gates get to control near monopolies, and pump endless dollars into pet projects that shape how we run things for hundreds of millions of people simply because their wealth is so great.

Skankhair posted...

And theyre destroying your uninformed dogshit arguments while everyone laughs, great job

Nah, they really haven't. You only think they are because you're bitter about being a loser. Here's a helpful tip. Less punching air, more climbing stairs.

ToteAll posted...

human nature

This is always brought up during discussions of economic systems, and it's always vague as shit. What specifically about human nature makes direct democracy in more areas an unfeasible idea? It just seems like a lazy way to throw your hands up and say "it's too hard, this is the best we can do" without acknowledging that human behavior is directly molded by the system in which we live.

Capitalism is like the game "Monopoly", you really want to get some properties your first couple times aroind the board or you're in trouble.

Thing is, they've already gone around the board hundreds of times before you were born.

CoyoteTheGreat posted...

Maybe if capitalism wasn't complete dogshit it wouldn't be the main thing people complain about everywhere.

/topic

Honestly, it's sad people still defend the obviously rotten and corrupt system. It slaps you in the face with how bad it is every day, but people still accept it for whatever reason. Also:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Sq1Nr58hM&pp=ygUacmVkIGFsZXJ0IGNhcGl0YWxpc20gc3BhY2U%3D

ToteAll posted...

CE should really start printing this on sweat/stain resistant T-shirts.

But no, you're, again, thinking of neoliberalism.

Alternatively, tell me what system would be better, without rampant poverty, forced birth control, hunger, etc. By all means, I'm all ears.

jesus christ dude this is like talking to a fucking brick. learn to read or something

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

jesus christ dude this is like talking to a fucking brick. learn to read or something

You're talking to the dude that thinks "capitalism requires an exploited underclass" is a good thing. There's no permeating that brainrot.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/4/9/AAfOu0AAEmDh.jpg

Its almost like economic systems have a massive effect on policy and society and therefore would easily worm their way into current events discussion

NeonTentacles posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/4/9/AAfOu0AAEmDh.jpg

can you name some things that are unaffected by capitalism

You not getting any girls

legendary_zell posted...

I agree that most existing states are authoritarian and that the word can be used as a cudgel. But that doesn't mean there aren't degrees to it. The US is authoritarian in some respects, especially if you don't live a life useful to capital, but I can call Joe Biden or even Trump or Bush a poopyhead while they're in power. I can relatively openly be a leftist. I could even call for revolution, as long as I don't take any violent acts towards it. In Stalinist Russia, or current NK, or Maoist China, that....wouldn't go well. Those states crushed any and all dissent, individual or organized, and had the power to kill millions or make uncheckable decisions that did so. In contrast, this state mostly focuses on violent dissent and dissent that gets a little too well organized, or controls through poverty and incarceration.

TLDR: there are levels to this shit.

the US currently has the power to kill millions and make uncheckable decisions that do so. and, crucially, they have done so and continue to do so, mostly in other countries.

the alternative to an "authoritarian" state that the US government does not approve of, is the government getting overthrown by illegal military coups funded by the US. the US then installs a worse state that is in line with their own corporate interests

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

can you name some things that are unaffected by capitalism

your pitiful karma/month ratio

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

the US currently has the power to kill millions and make uncheckable decisions that do so. and, crucially, they have done so and continue to do so, mostly in other countries.

the alternative to an "authoritarian" state that the US government does not approve of, is the government getting overthrown by illegal military coups funded by the US. the US then installs a worse state that is in line with their own corporate interests

I've already said that the US is authoritarian, especially internationally and I oppose that authoritarianism. Doesn't mean previous and current Communist states weren't authoritarian in an even worse way domestically, if not internationally. I don't dispute that the domestic authoritarianism we've seen in the Communist countries we've seen so far was in large part due to the legitimate paranoia of counterrevolutionary activity funded by capital. But it was still awful and unacceptable. You can say it was necessary, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worse comparatively and more importantly, bad.

legendary_zell posted...

I've already said that the US is authoritarian, especially internationally and I oppose that authoritarianism. Doesn't mean previous and current Communist states weren't authoritarian in an even worse way domestically, if not internationally. I don't dispute that the domestic authoritarianism we've seen in the Communist countries we've seen so far was in large part due to the legitimate paranoia of counterrevolutionary activity funded by capital. But it was still awful and unacceptable. You can say it was necessary, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worse comparatively and more importantly, bad.

worse comparatively to what?

ToteAll posted...

But are you saying it was "great"? "Good"? What are you saying? Because using "perfect" as "what you're not calling it" is really fucking suspicious of what you would be calling it. Allende's government was a disaster.

It was democratically elected and if it was going to collapse, it should have been allowed to do that. It did enough good things to worry the interests of capital, and that's why it was forcefully toppled. That's the same dynamic we saw all throughout Latin America. Were all those places instances where the government was definitely about to fall and the CIA just gave it a push out of the kindness of their hearts?

Oh so you feed into this crap and don't know how the crap even works? It sure as hell was gonna collapse, it was already collapsing. Allende would increase government spending by 400% (I am not exaggerating) between years while systematically ruining the government's income. You thinking they interfere because "it wasn't gonna collapse" is childish. They toppled the falling tower to be there to ransack the rubble and do their little experiment.

Who says I don't want change? I do, I just laugh at the notion that socialism or anarchism are the solution, because they are not. There's even some CEbuddies who shill for fucking communism.

You're not addressing my core argument. You say you want change, but you don't address how you'll get that change while accepting the structure and power relations of capitalism. You've spent a fair amount of time criticizing your current social democratic government. So is social democracy too far, or do you want some other form of social democracy? Socialism is too far, anarchism is too far, communism is too far. If you think all of that is too far, you'll be trying to fix Capitalism with Capitalism, and that's not going to work if all political and economic power is still concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. And how are you going to reduce that power without one of the aforementioned systems? Your plan is to wait until they have everything, then try to fight them, without leftist ideology?

The previous periods of "well regulated capitalism" were only secured through the struggle of unions and other groups organized by communists, socialists, and anarchists, and through the constant threat of the peasants/underclass/proletariat taking their cues from the Soviets. Without that, all you'll get is what we have now.

legendary_zell posted...

Are you denying that they were in fact sabotaged? They made a lot of mistakes to be sure, I'm not a defender of authoritarian communism, that system killed a lot of people. But these were some of the first attempts at an alternative and they were attempted under horrible conditions. And they did some things right. Furthermore, those weren't the only socialist/leftist experiments. The US/West/Capitalist countries also killed all attempts at non-authoritarian experiments in Central America, Africa, Asia, and Europe.

I don't know what would have happened if they'd been allowed to develop without fear and violence, but I do know that sabotage works and support works.

I'm not sure frankly, I just believe it's more likely they had a failing system and foundation that sabotaged them more then any foreign interference. Plenty of country's still rose and progressed overtime from Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, china and so on. All thanks to capiltisim BTW.

That and other country's had century's still to flourish before any interference at all. And achieved very little compared captilist ones.

legendary_zell posted...

Demand is in large part shaped by Capitalism. That's one of the central elements of the system, it relies on endless growth and endless consumption. That's led directly to increased exploitation of natural resources and increased emissions. Additionally, the interests of capital are the exact interests who blocked, falsified, and downplayed the effects of emissions on the climate. The people would want a different world if they knew what was actually being done to it and have always wanted a transition to a more sustainable economy, but current business interests didn't want that, and here we are.

Demand is shaped by the needs and wants of the people. Which are infinite and ever growing. Yet another reason why captilsim is the the most compatible system for humanity.

And I think you're overestimating humanity by a wide margin of you believe they'd be willing to make any comprises for a better world if they knew how much pain and suffering it would cause them.

legendary_zell posted...

Maybe it's the fact that you were focusing on the debt we're in because of them and not the fact that they're necessary and the only thing keeping tens of millions of people out of abject poverty. And that there could have been a lot less debt with higher ttaxes

Those same people aren't interested in paying more taxs, hell it's sort of political suicide for any politician to even entertain the thought.

And without a major overhurl to them and higher taxs its going to reach a breaking point eventually. And the suffering then will be unimaginable.

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

worse comparatively to what?

Compared to the capitalist states in North America and Western Europe. Yes, those states don't have to worry about the CIA couping them into a helicopter ride, but there is more free speech, less enforced political orthodoxy, more political diversity, and less concentration of political power in the hands of one party or one party official.

Prismsblade posted...

I'm not sure frankly, I just believe it's more likely they had a failing system and foundation that sabotaged them more then any foreign interference. Plenty of country's still rose and progressed overtime from Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, china and so on. All thanks to capiltisim BTW.

That and other country's had century's still to flourish before any interference at all. And achieved very little compared captilist ones.

the achievements of wealthy capitalist nations come at the expense of the poorer nations that they stole resources from

legendary_zell posted...

Compared to the capitalist states in North America and Western Europe. Yes, those states don't have to worry about the CIA couping them into a helicopter ride, but there is more free speech, less enforced political orthodoxy, more political diversity, and less concentration of political power in the hands of one party or one party official.

so what do you think would be an acceptable way for the "worse" nations to defend themselves from "better" nations

Prismsblade posted...

I'm not sure frankly, I just believe it's more likely they had a failing system and foundation that sabotaged them more then any foreign interference. Plenty of country's still rose and progressed overtime from Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, china and so on. All thanks to capiltisim BTW.

That's a convenient consequence of couping and sabotaging them, then propagandizing them as pure evil for decades. People don't get a sense of what their merits are, they can by necessity, only make assumptions, and those assumptions can only be based on ideology. An ideology helpfully supplied by the couping society.

All of the Asian Tigers other than China were handpicked for success as a policy to destroy leftist potential in those countries. And none of them succeeded through the neoliberal capitalism of today. They all had heavy state direction of the economy, protectionist policies, authoritarian capitalism, etc. No one is allowed to do what they did today as the US and international institutions force neoliberal capitalism on any developing country that wants money today.

That and other country's had century's still to flourish before any interference at all. And achieved very little compared capitalist ones.

The countries that did flourish did so directly through conquest and subjugation of the very countries you're saying weren't interfered with. When were those centuries where Asia, Africa, and Latin America weren't colonized/exploited, but Europe/the US was already capitalist? Colonialism started as early as the 1490s, Capitalism started in the 1500s. And Capitalist wealth was funded directly by the international exploitation, to the point that such wealth directly sparked the industrial revolution in Britain.

Demand is shaped by the needs and wants of the people. Which are infinite and ever growing. Yet another reason why captilsim is the the most compatible system for humanity.

They are not infinite and ever growing, though they are great. Capitalism generates ever greater demand, to the point of being unsustainable, while not meeting people's actual needs for community, rest, leisure, self determination etc. People had been content with far less than what they feel they constantly need under Capitalism for all of human history, and that's in large part because they had those other, more important things. It's possible to do both, but not under Capitalism.

And I think you're overestimating humanity by a wide margin of you believe they'd be willing to make any comprises for a better world if they knew how much pain and suffering it would cause them.

I think you're underestimating the hell out of humanity, and that's core conservative assumption, that our nature is fixed and that it's awful. If you genuinely think humanity would rather burn for an uneven and temporary period of enhanced wealth, rather than a substantiable system of living, I don't know if we can ever agree.

Those same people aren't interested in paying more taxs, hell it's sort of political suicide for any politician to even entertain the thought.

That aversion to taxes, and the assumption that ordinary people would bear the burden of it has been deliberately generated over the last century by capital and their buddies. It doesn't have to be that way at all.

And without a major overhurl to them and higher taxs its going to reach a breaking point eventually. And the suffering then will be unimaginable.

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

so what do you think would be an acceptable way for the "worse" nations to defend themselves from "better" nations

I'm not sure, since it hasn't been done yet. My best guess is that it would involve some sort of international economic and military solidarity, undeniable domestic societal/economic successes, and work to reduce anti-left hysteria in capitalist states.

All I know is that the state police disappearing you because your aunt heard you disparage the motherland and the party is not the way. That can't be the way. I wouldn't want to live under that, and that method has been the second biggest enemy of the left after capital.