/lit/ - Literature

Capitalism sucks balls and yet it's now the dominant economic system everywhere and will be for the forseseable future. If you weren't a navel-gazing retard you would find this disturbing and sad.

>>17993334
>Capitalism sucks balls
Why?

>>17993358
he didn't get a pony, it's just not fair

>>17993358
Extreme economic inequality, waste, environmental devastation, imperialism/colonialism, wars for resources and so on. The fact that it is the best economic system we have managed to create is a pretty tragic joke.

>>17993358
He made the accurate point that it destroys solidarity and privatizes mental illness. YOU're mentally ill because YOUR chemicals are out of whack, not because you live in a shitty society with no sense of family, friendship, community, art, religion, etc.
Here, take your meds

>>17993378
the iraq war was because saddam might have had weapons of mass destruction, saying it was about oil is a debunked conspiracy theory

>>17993401
This is like 10 cent bait anon, I expected at least a 5 dollar bait.

>>17993381
>you live in a shitty society with no sense of family, friendship, community, art, religion, etc.
speak for yourself chud

>>17993284
>economically efficient
Eat the bugs, live in ze pod, becone more efficient..

>>17993378
>Extreme economic inequality, waste, environmental devastation, imperialism/colonialism
None of these are predicated by capitalism.

>>17993424
Anon stop right there. We aren't talking about your fantasy version of capitalism, we are talking about actually existing capitalism.

And in actually existing capitalism, it is the cause of all those things. Deal with it.

>>17993424
Yes it is. How can rich people get rich if not by stealing the surplus value created by the workers?
Capitalism produces a lot of garbage, those FunkoPops are likely to end up in a landfill because they're not really valuable.
In order to produce you need to set up factories and factories end up producing toxic waste which is harmful for the environment.
Capitalism also incentivizes colonialism/imperialism as a means of acquiring more resources and penetrating new markets.

>>17993434
luckily there was no inequality in the soviet union, and no occupation of hungary and poland, and chernobyl didn't happen.

>>17993434
It's the best we have

>>17993441
Yikes.

>>17993284
Commies share tons of commonalities with traditionalists. But the porkman is controlling their strings and making them tear each other up into pieces like dogs. And porkman wins every time.

>>17993443
Dumb whataboutism.

>>17993468
>all these bad things are caused by capitalism
>literally every single one happened worse in an anti-capitalist empire
>cries of whataboutism
ok

>>17993445
I don't agree, and I think people who think so lack imagination in the same way a peasant or aristocrat did under feudalism; they also thought they were living in perfect societies.

The great arc of history is going to destroy capitalism, because nothing lasts forever.

>>17993468
Epic twitter reply. I said predicated -- meaning all of those things are not dependant on capitalism existing to exist themselves. Were mammoths and asiatic lions killed by capitalism?

>>17993284
>>Is that... an increasingly economically efficient, increasingly multicultural, Western country that just happens to be an unconditional ally of Israel, with all of its major politicians auditioning for post-politics investment banking sinecures???
Is this supposed to be good

>>17993483
>The great arc of history is going to destroy capitalism, because nothing lasts forever.
capitalism has lasted as long as civilization, every since the first shephard loaned out some sheep and demanded interested to cover the new calfs that would be born during that period, have lived in "capitalism", thinking capitalism is some stage that had a beginning and end it where you fail

>>17993488
>I said predicated -- meaning all of those things are not dependant on capitalism existing to exist themselves.

Well I think there's a difference between 3 peasants in a Japanese prefecture during the Tokugawa Shogunate overfishing in a pond and multinational corporations literally destroying the planet to make themselves rich.

>>17993401
Ah I see this thread is bait

>>17993483
>I don't agree, and I think people who think so lack imagination in the same way a peasant or aristocrat did under feudalism
there was a japanese government that tried a land redistribution scheme but of course as people had children at different rates it became increasingly untenable to keep everything even, people most definitely thought of communism back then, and rejected it then too

>>17993505
>every since the first shephard loaned out some sheep and demanded interested to cover the new calfs that would be born during that period

This isn't capitalism anon. Capitalism would be you owning all the sheep and taking 99% of the profits from all the wool the shepherd cuts off and sells, e.g he does all the actual work and gets none of the money and you get rich.

>>17993509
That's crazy how you ignored my example of a species wiped out by classical civilization and another wiped out by stone age people.

>>17993401
Not really. The weapons of mass destruction thing was conjured out of whole cloth. On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld asked whether they couldn't use the prior day's events as a pretext to invade Iraq.

>>17993541
that would be a monopoly which is illegal under a modern capitalist regulatory system

>>17993542
I don't think the extinction of wooly mammoths is analogous to pouring 10 megatons a year worth of toxic waste into a river so the all people living downstream die of leukemia 15 years later.

>>17993541
>another dumb communist doesn't know how economics or the real world works thread
I hate reruns
if doing no work is so profitable how come you guys aren't rich?

>>17993568
i do. now what?

>>17993565
No it's not. What I described is literally a necessary feature of capitalism, and would collapse without it.

>>17993541
>This example of capitalism isn't capitalism
>Only this insane strawman I've invented in my head counts as capitalism.
k
>>17993513
You're surprised?

>>17993568
I think it's worse. It completely changed the ecological framework of a huge area. You don't think so because you can't even comprehend it.

>>17993592
>if doing no work is so profitable

Learn to read anon. The point is that *owning the means by which other people can do labor* is what makes you rich.

>>17993622
so why don't you take out a loan and buy the means of production?

>>17993622
The vast majority of rich people are self-made so you're w-w-w-w-w-wrong!

>>17993596
>one entity owns all means of production
actually what you were describing is more like the soviet union which did indeed collapse, so you're half right

>>17993632
>so why don't you

A better question is why don't YOU since you love capitalism so much.

>>17993401
It was for Israel

>>17993622
This isn't true because capitalists don't also own the bodies of the workers. They can induce incentives to work by making material hard to access, but they cannot truly compel someone to labor unless they extinguish all other options but to work. This simply is not possible unless they enacted some grand conspiracy to destroy all non-domesticated life, and even then there would be small-business pirates who find a way to carve out their own communities. There will always be a "back-to-earth" faction that just hides in the woods and eats berries and deer rather than deal with factory labor.

Capitalists own the means to do SPECIFIC labor. Not labor in general. They can't force you to labor or block you from laboring without their consent, they can only block you from, say, producing chairs without their consent.

>>17993334
>>17993378
Do you ever get tired of blaming everything wrong in the world on the capitalism boogeyman?

>>17993644
Stop being so deliberately obtuse anon, you know perfectly well what I mean.

>>17993650
labor less work and less risky, although i do of course also have a variety of investments like most people in modern capitalism

>>17993650
I don't have the intelligence for a successful business and knowing that won't take the risk. The same reason as most people including you except unlike you I'm aware of this.

>>17993668
>I don't have the intelligence for a successful business and knowing that won't take the risk.

Sounds like a huge cope to me and you're just a pathetic loser who deserves to be poor.

>>17993668
>I'm dumber than a business major
Well, why should I listen to you if you're stupid?

>>17993664
you created a strawman where some maniacal sheepmonger literally owns every sheep on the planet and then expect anyone to believe this represents capitalism?

>>17993676
t. says the guy using his free time to shill socialism on an anonymous mongolian basketweaving

holy god the lack of self awareness...

>>17993664
Yes, he does, which is why he produced that example. The problem you're describing is a problem of centralization, not of capitalism. It's the same criticisms made of lunatic dictators since time immemorial. You've just replaced their boogeymen with yours. Centralization is a problem, and capitalism must be regulated to prevent it. Are we doing that? No. That doesn't make capitalism the culprit. The culprit is the degenerate state governance apparatus that is corrupt and in the pockets of companies.

>>17993677
I never said anything about business majors. It's interesting you immediately went to academia though for an authority to appeal to and a class caste system to hide behind, says a lot about you and nothing about me.

>>17993700
>Business majors
>Academia

>>17993650
labor is less work, for example i'm getting paid wages right now, but if i had my own factory to manage i'd probably have to be out on the shop floor making sure everything is running smoothly or autistically pouring over a spreadsheets to make sure my lieutenants are managing my supply chain efficiently.

>>17993667
>labor less work and less risky, although i do of course also have a variety of investments like most people in modern capitalism
imagine investing in the system that conspires against you

>>17993678
>you created a strawman where some maniacal sheepmonger literally owns every sheep on the planet

No I didn't you retard. The same mechanism is true even if he owns 3 or 15 sheep you absolute sperg.

>>17993710
>capitalism is a conspiracy
meds, now.

>>17993707
>hahaa this imagined sub-caste system that divides caste system I use to substitute critical thinking with proves I'm smart and superior! The piece of paper I bought for 4 years and 100k in loans here says so.
Truly. Pathetic.

>>17993720
It literally isn't. If I own 15 sheep and only make money by renting them out to shepherds, I need to provide an offer to them that they're willing to take. If I own all the shepherds and can enforce my monopoly, I'm competing with their desire to stay in the market. If there's 10,000 other shepherds, I have to compete with them.

>>17993690
That post was supposed to be an ironic representation of how capitalism works you retard, e.g everyone but capitalists who run businesses deserve to be poor.

This is what you have to believe if you support capitalism. And presumably that's what you believe yourself.

>>17993690
>t. says the guy using his free time to shill socialism on an anonymous mongolian basketweavin
The thought of Marxists accusing others of 'cope' is too hilarious to be true. Surely this is a troll thread? Marxists are the biggest losers in the planet, their entire ideology consists of avoiding competition and rewarding commitment to loserdom instead.

>>17993700
Sorry, I didn't want to say you were dumber than a hillbilly with sheet metal.

>>17993710
Imagine not investing. You live in this society, might as well gamble for some big buxx

>>17993734
>If I own 15 sheep and only make money by renting them out to shepherds, I need to provide an offer to them that they're willing to take. If I own all the shepherds and can enforce my monopoly, I'm competing with their desire to stay in the market. If there's 10,000 other shepherds, I have to compete with them.

People being willing to work for you, or you having competition does not change the fact that the person working for you is producing more value by his labor than what you pay them in a wage. This is literally what we call "profit", and is the engine of capitalism.

>>17993729
The only one here missing critical thinking is you. Business majors aren't academics. They're not "the dumbest academics", they aren't academics. They're a major that exists solely because it was profitable to provide a space for those with experience in business to teach those who were going into business. They barely even do research, and the research they DO is more like "I've created a new org chart by switching two places" or "I've surveyed 10,000 companies to see what they think about X", which isn't knowledge creation but knowledge centralization.

>>17993756
so what?

The amount of seething in this thread is beautiful.

>>17993761
any mba is going to be more rigorous than whatever grievance studies degree you did were conspiracy theories and pathological cynicism pass a "research"

>>17993768
>so what?

Well that's literally the Marxist critique of capitalism. Why should any worker work to make a capitalist rich, when they can simply work entirely for themselves? E.g. workers have a material self-interest in abolishing capitalism.

>>17993756
You're willfully ignoring the part where the owner of sheep facilitates their existence and allows the shepherd to spend more time herding. I'm not so retarded that I think sheep owners facilitate the existence of sheep, it's rather that if you were a shepherd you might spend 12 hours a day taking care of the sheep, and the owner provides you with them. While with no sheep owner you have to devote some amount of that time, maybe 2 hours, to making sure the sheep are lambing regularly. So your production is reduced, and you have higher costs as well. The presence of the owner facilitates higher production by bearing the costs and removing eliminating the time-labor of making lambs present.

>>17993434

cause and effect

>>17993787
>workers have a material self-interest in abolishing capitalism.
but they don't because if you make investing in new venture illegal the economy will stagnate and their objective material conditions will be worse even if in the short term their walmart job pays an extra 3 cents an hour.

>>17993783
I'm an engineer actually, and spent my undergrad doing research in materials to develop a conductive film that can biodegrade.
In contrast with business majors, grievance studies majors are the "dumbest academics".

>>17993787
that's like saying abolishing taxes is in the worker's interest because they will save 5% on sales tax when they buy a sugary drink. yeah, sure that's nice in the short term, but when the transportation systems fall apart and there's no one to inspect the water treatment plants for safety it's going to be objectively worse.

>>17993803
>but they don't because if you make investing in new venture illegal

Nobody has ever argued making shit illegal. You clearly can't separate between a system having fundamental flaws and internal contradictions from a theoretical perspective, and what's good politics pragmatically speaking.

>>17993812
>that's like saying abolishing taxes is in the worker's interest because they will save 5% on sales tax when they buy a sugary drink.

No, it's more like saying cutting taxes is good for workers because taxes pays for shit like a grossly enlarged imperialistic military, or a bunch of retards at the DMV who play World of Warcraft during office hours.

And you would be correct. Cutting taxes is perfectly consistent with Marxism as long as the cut means you remove economic parasites off the backs of workers.

>>17993816
He can, it's just that historically the approach of communists to solving this problem is "We'll make venture capitalism illegal". Even if your solution is "Well we'll come up with something better", you have no evidence something better even exists, and inventing increasingly illogical polemics doesn't contribute to this.

>>17993787
That's a weak critique. Capitalism incentivizes mutually beneficial transaction, provides a mechanism of competition by which the price of labor and the share of profit is settled. The employee works for themselves in that they receive the market price of their labor. In socialism or communism workers do not "work for themselves" because the state/commune has to appropriate the fruits of labor to redistribute it and sustain itself and the worker gets what the state/commune deems "fair."

>>17993826
but what about workers who charge too much for their labor? aren't they economic parasites since it would make the products too expensive for other workers? what should workers do if the workers collective that makes essential widgets is charging too much? start a competing widget factory and undercut them?

>>17993826
>marxist unironically argues for smaller government

haha 4channel dot org is a laugh riot

>>17993833
Well I'm not defending socialism or communism as it has previously existed in the Soviet Union or any other place that practiced command economies, and besides, the USSR failing and being a totalitarian shithole doesn't make Marxism wrong about capitalism.

>>17993848
>marxists reduced to arguing that marxism isn't wrong since a profitable enterprise needs to produce more value than the cost of labor and materials
the absolute state of marxism. just give it up dude.

>>17993848
You have to defend some sort of concrete alternative otherwise your critique is toothless. If you really think about it, any economic system more complex than simple agriculture has this problem.

>>17993844
In Marxism the state is a tool for capitalist exploitation, for marxists capitalism doesn't stop at the public-private distinction like it does in liberalism.

So no, a marxist isn't arguing for "smaller government", a marxist argues for "less exploitation". It doesn't matter if that exploitation is taxes or a shittier wage.

>>17993877
>Exploitation is wrong
Wow, stunning. Truly, no one thought that stealing unjust material wealth from people was wrong until Marx had the balls to declare it for all humanity. No wonder his books were so long, it was a truly novel idea.

>>17993844
yeah, what's next, capitalists arguing for private property? LOL

>>17993905
People have always moralized about it anon, but what Marx showed is that it's a systematic and technical feature of capitalism, which makes it very different from just saying "Stealing is morally wrong".

>>17993787
working for yourself =/= abolishing capitalism, when the US was more capitalist than now more people were self employed. Still lots of reasons you'd be an employee for a time, gain skills, save up for education etc.

>>17993441
>surplus value
once you realize that value is strictly subjective, you can dispense with nonsense like this.

>>17993905
does it feel good shitting your diaper?

>>17993925
He didn't show that it's a systemic failure. He arbitrarily declared that businesses making profit is exploitative. There is literally no difference in how you and I view capitalism mechanistically other than that you axiomatically declare that "Business makes 8 dollars, owner gets six and worker get two" is exploitation and toss out any and all explanations of why this is a logical or even beneficial arrangement.

>>17993940

>>17993947
>He arbitrarily declared that businesses making profit is exploitative.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. Everything about the Marxist critique of capitalism is about labor creating value and that value being expropriated by the owner of the means of production. This isn't arbitrary.

>>17993965
>This thing which Marx made up isn't arbitrary because he also invented a framework to explain it
The fact that Marxist Economics has an internal framework doesn't change that its axioms are arbitrary. If I put in thousands of hours of legwork to develop an idea, arrange the capitol, organize the building, purchase the equipment, and hire the workers needed to manufacture a good, you're on thin ice to explain why it's "exploitation" for me to then take most of the profits. It intuitively makes sense that the person who has an idea, does most of the work to organize it, and bears the most risk for pursuing it should receive the largest quantity of the profits.

>>17993965
The labor is sold by the worker at a price he deems appropriate. This mechanism is only distorted when a worker has to agree to an inappropriate price for his labor due to a lack of alternatives and the need to survive somehow, which is why something like UBI would do so much to correct wages.

>>17994000
>does most of the work to organize it

Organization doesn't make money. Only the goods and service that a business sells, make profits. And the goods and services are made entirely by workers, and they only see a fraction of the profits.

When did the average age of the board finally dip below 18

>>17994034
Day 1

>>17994022
You're misunderstanding what I mean by organization. I mean the arrangement of input goods and markets to sell them in, and the facilitation of capital and resources. A business cannot make money without that. It doesn't matter how good your workers are, if no one is buying them wood and arranging sales in the chair market, they will make nothing. If no one buys them tools and replaces old tools, they will make nothing.

>>17994041
I mean, this is obviously true, but doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense that such a person somehow deserves most of other people's productive output.

I mean, you could analogize this with the government and say that the heads of departments deserve 99% of the federal budget simply because they are responsible for organizing the hierarchy even though the low-level clerks do all the actual paperwork.

>>17993453
>Commies share tons of commonalities with traditionalists
they don't at all.

>>17994405
They can recognize similar problems, which leads to some people to entertain notions of creating a fake unity between communists and traditionalists by trying to force some "compromise" on positions on this or that, but I don't think it really works that way -- if that does happen, I think it tends to develop out of sheer circumstance like Russian leftists and socialists (future Bolsheviks) fighting alongside traditionalist / conservative Russian adventurers on the side of the Boers in the Boer War against the British Empire.

I think it's probably a similar thing in Donbass, where you have these communists from different parts of Europe who have gone there to fight on the side of the Donetsk People's Republic alongside Orthodox Christian conservatives from Russia. And there are neo-Nazis fighting on the side of Ukraine and waving NATO flags -- just bizarre, right? You get some fun combinations:

https://youtu.be/su2OfiqGgRk

>>17994292
This is where the arbitrariness of Marx's analysis comes in. You arbitrarily declare that the productive output which is fundamentally responsible for the existence of an industry is equivalent to the the productive output that is highly replaceable and easily mimicable. Let us boil it down to essential analysis.

I have a company with five employees. One is the person who organizes the inputs and outputs and has extensive connections to leverage that ensure the wood gets here and the chairs leave (the "planner"). One is a "manager" who is good at coordinating the floor and making sure the carpenters problems are solved. The other three are carpenters. If the manager is replaced, the carpenters have some problems. Not everything is "organized", but the carpenters can probably work this out on their own. This is the kind of organization you keep insisting I'm talking about (It's not btw, but you won't fucking listen retard). If any of the carpenters leaves, the others can pick up the slack, and the manager can probably devote some of his time to productive work. Losses here are frustrating, but replaceable. Even if all the carpenters quit, the manager and the planner will have to learn to make chairs on their own, but will have to learn things. The chairs will be notably worse, but they'll still be produced. If the planner quits though, the entire fucking business collapses. Without his connections and willingness to bear the financial burden for the shop, nothing is being bought and nothing is being sold. At best, the costs of production go up dramatically, and even if a carpenter or organizer tries to replace him, it will be a long time before they have the resources to match his output.

Now, if your point that the planner was stealing productive output was true, wouldn't it be the case that with his loss there was not a dramatic reduction in productive work, i.e. the movement of goods? After all, chairs produced in a vacuum are useless, it's only ones that make it to homes that have value. And productive work that creates nothing because there are no resources or tools is meaningless. The logic that the executives are "stealing productive labor through profit" falls apart when you consider that the productivity gap between businesses with and without executive positions is far larger than simply "one laborer". Marxists brainlets are unable to conceive that the reason workers might only get half of the value of a good is because those getting the other half are responsible for productivity being doubled. They only think in concrete terms like "This person built this chair" and not "This person's labor is responsible for the chair being built."

>>17994041
I don't think you're wrong about that, but I think the point I got from Marx is: where did you get the capital in the first place? You're a capitalist in a very literal sense of the term yeah? You're putting capital together to buy machinery and labor power to produce goods and services to sell for a profit.

So again, where did you get the capital? Well, you might've taken out a loan from a bank, or have investors. The bank is taking a risk to loan you the money, and the investors want to see a profit on their investment, so you have a fiduciary obligation to deliver a profit -- you can be sued by your investors if you don't, or the bank can come and liquidate your business if you don't pay the interest on the loan. Exploitation of the workforce is just a fact here, it's not a moral question, or whether you "should" or "should not" have a moral right to do this, in a capitalist system you don't have any choice in the matter, if you want to be a capitalist.

The implications that get drawn out here are interesting, such as: capitalists compete with each other, they try to make their production processes more efficient, and invest in machines, but since labor produces most of the value in the first place, the costs of operating and maintaining machinery rises, so throughout the economy overall profit tends to decline over time, which eventually leads to decay as the capitalists start to look toward speculative ventures and "making money from money" which is a very *decadent* late-stage version of capitalism. And capitalist blocs of powers in the world launch wars to fight for resources and markets or to squeeze out the competition.

And then it blows itself up and socialist revolutions break out. Well yeah, it was predictable, the question is where the iron will strike and where's "the weak link" in the world. That in the 20th century turned out to be in Russia and in China.

https://youtu.be/BxJ55gFvn5M

I have my theory about what the next one is. But I don't want to say it. Knock on wood.

>>17995475
I like Marx a lot and I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I'm not that other anon. But I don't think most people and even most "socialists" online who describe themselves as Marxists have even read him. It's very strange, like they adopt this mirror image of bog-standard liberal-capitalist entrepreneurship propaganda: "I will be my own boss! I will run my own business!"

And you correctly go: no you're not. You're not going to have managers and planners? That's some BS. And you're correct to say it's BS. This is a requirement brought about by logistics and a modern economy. I think this kind of "let's all be equal and get paid the same and we won't have managers" is more like anarchism. I would imagine that a lot of them are former libertarians of the right who became left-wing "socialists." But you can read Marx in the Gotha Progamme, or read Marx shitting on Stirner for being an equalitarian, or read Lenin. They thought this whole thing was like primitive peasant communism. The focus on "inequality" as the main problem -- although it can be a problem -- ignores that a class can reap the benefits of work via public investment (i.e. a bullet train), even if managers and planners make more as individuals.

https://youtu.be/L9AF2fiYANc

>increasingly economically efficient
the idea that the western system is 'efficient' is beyond retarded, just look at the American healthcare field. Why are leftist critiques so goddamn hit or miss? They miss facts right in front of their eyes because they get so fixated on theory.

>>17993378
Idiot

>>17993284
>What's this guy's point? He's not racist or anti-semitic, so what the hell did he have to complain about?
I actually think he redpilled himself on how the left had moved on to becoming a caste of the secular clergy and ideology producers rather than representing workers.
Usually when leftists come to this conclusion they become fascist or populist like Mussolini or they become mega blackpilled apoliticals.

>>17993409
So you're satisfied with capitalism after all?

>>17995783
>Usually when leftists come to this conclusion they become fascist or populist like Mussolini or they become mega blackpilled apoliticals.
don't forget the eternal copers

>>17993505
>capitalism
>existing forever

Bruh... capitalism has existed at the LATEST since like the late 18th century... its a very recent system actually... You’re thinking of the act of commerce like trading and bartering goods. Most markets prior to the 19th century were very closed and would require like a charter from the monarch of a kingdom to open a company and usually the only people who even allowed to were friends or relatives of the king, always nobles.

Fuck man, American education is so bad...

>>17995783
This happened to me. I simply saw human nature for what it is and realised that humans could never live in a truly egalitarian socialist society. I’m not a capitalist libertarian cuck but my views are now more idiosyncratic and I don’t make any effort to have a “coherent” basis for my views. It’s still bad when big business pollute the areas where people live but if socialists ever managed to take over America it would kill millions of people. Just trust me.

>t. still active membership in the Democratic Socialists of America

>>17995857
>nitpicking market regulations means capitalism didn't exist
dividing history into stages is a modernist fallacy, you fail.

>>17995893
Just read about medieval political economy bro. There’s nothing “capitalistic” about it lol.

>>17993747
The fuck is that?

>>17995893
>dividing history into stages is a modernist fallacy, you fail.

>>17995910
There were some capitalist elements, there was a market created by trade of surplus goods even in feudal system, which many peasants engaged in.

>>17993334
Capitalism isn't the problem, it's identity and lack of group symbiosis
It's entirely about values

>>17993401
reddit tier bait

>>17995758
i always imagine idiot posters to be 35+ year old boomers

>>17996445
agreed, and capitalism disrupts values! read Marx retard

Can't anyone come up with a new criticism of capitalism with a new solution?

>>17997416
YOU should read Marx. He does argue capitalism erodes traditional values but he considers this progress and something to be encouraged.

Socialism would take it farther as even the principle of equity or proportional compensation would be done away as a bougie leftover as people fully embraced the principle of "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability" in a society of free access. Most people would consider that unjust - but Marx would just say this borgeois moralism should be done away with eventually.

>>17995884
>>t. still active membership in the Democratic Socialists of America
You don't have to humiliate yourself any longer anon.

>>17993517
That doesn't prevent invention and adoption of new systems in the future