/lit/ - Literature

Go to the woods, live like if you were Thoreau.

>>3645510

Emigrate.

>>3645510
Realistically? As in having as little as possible to do with it?

http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/S3566857#p3566930

move to north korea

I am >>3645517, and this [>>3645518] is an option too, less romantic tough.

>>3645518
I'm starting to think North Korea is a superior alternative to the US after watching that video in the OP.

Where do I sign up?

>>3645510
well that kid has guts

This is what late capitalism does to people.

Note Fox News on the television.

>>3645627
oops wrong pic, I don't have the one with Fox News on in the back.

>How can i escape the horrors of capitalism
>Capitalism
>A system of wealth distribution where freedom of choice to participate in the economy and a free market has provided the Western world with prosperity and wealth completely unknown to our ancestors
>A system where the vast majority of citizens are able to earn a living wage by their work, improve their lot in life through educating themselves and their progeny into more useful human capital thus improving their status and wealth while contributing further to the economy
>Capitalism is great you fucking kooks

'Late Capitalism' sounds like it was coined by a Marxist.

What's after late capitalism?

>>3645650
Morning Capitalism

>>3645657
>cyclical conception of history
>marxist

>>3645650
Workers' control.

>>3645649

capitalism does not serve the interests of many 4chan posters. I don't know why you're surprised they reject it.

>>3645649
>>Capitalism is great you fucking kooks*

>*until the complete and utter rape of local natural resources causes the final collapse of human society

>>3645649
It really is. A lot of people, mainly edgy teen anarchists who have no idea what they're talking about, conflate problems with the current capitalist system with inherent flaws in capitalism.

It's silly really, but they can't be reasoned with.

>>3645529

>life in America from a best Korean perspective

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a8_1362925707

>>3645672
The interests of 4chan posters can't be served by any economic system. Only when everyone in the world feels as miserable and as bitter as they do will 4chan posters truly be content

>>3645627

Yes - capitalism turns people into ponyfags.

>>3645670

Most of the problems with "capitalism" today are runaway government expenditures on social welfare and warfare and the state allying with corporations (corporatism) which is really about as antithetical to actual capitalism as you can get.

By far the best system developed, and perfectly in tune with human nature capitalism has very few flaws and will continue to be the way a modern society operates no matter what ignorance spews from the maw of the inbred fourteen year old masses on 4chan/elsewhere.

>>3645683
>"human nature"
>existing

>>3645649
>>3645670
>>3645683
>>>/mlp/

>>3645683
>no true scotsman
>appeal to nature
>ad hominem

Great hat trick, anon

>>3645687
>I have no understanding of biology or psychology
That's fine, friend. Stick to the abstract. it's what you do best.

>>3645510
becom NEET

>>3645691
This always makes me cringe. Mostly because of Ayn Rand

>>3645694

You don't even know what an ad hominem is you fucking piece of garbage.

FUCK I hate explaining this to you people over and over but here goes.

An ad hominem is a fallacious argument that rests on the assumption that the credibility of the person making a claim somehow counters the claim itself. For example if someone is a high school drop out and I say "you are wrong because you are a high school drop out" that is an ad hominem.

What I did was stated my point about capitalism and added at the end my view that most people who make the arguments typically seen as anti capitalist are uneducated and those opinions tend to be ignorant.

Learn the difference, it could save your life.

>>3645702
>I don't even read

"It is true that I mistrust the notion of human nature a little, and for the following reason: I believe that of the concepts or notions which a science can use, not all have the same degree of elaboration, and that in general they have neither the same function nor the same type of possible use in scientific discourse. Let's take the example of biology. You will find concepts with a classifying function, concepts with a differentiating function, and concepts with an analytical function: some of them enable us to characterise objects, for example that of "tissue"; others to isolate elements, like that of "hereditary feature"; others to fix relations, such as that of "reflex". There are at the same time elements which play a role in the discourse and in the internal rules of the reasoning practice. But there also exist "peripheral" notions, those by which scientific practice designates itself, differentiates itself in relation to other practices, delimits its domain of objects, and designates what it considers to be the totality of its future tasks. The notion of life played this role to some extent in biology during a certain period."

>>3645709
lol, nice ad hominem friend.

I'm joking. I agree that capitalism is the most efficient way of distributing goods, services and welfare, and though it needs reform, it would be ludicrous to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It seems like "capitalism" has become a catchall term for a sort of right-wing dystopian scarefest. I'm not sure If i've ever heard of a system of government that didn't rely for the support of its economy on a form of the kind of capitalism that Adam Smith talked about. Even communis countries did in their cooperative and trade operations. I think what 4channers hate is having to work for money, or there being people who have money that either worked for it or not, but who have more access to resources than they do. It's not an indictment of an economic system; it's personal animosity, write large.

>>3645709
>What I did was stated my point about capitalism and added at the end my view that most people who make the arguments typically seen as anti capitalist are uneducated and those opinions tend to be ignorant.

So, an ad hominem? What you're saying is "they are wrong because they are ignorant children."

>>3645713
" In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the notion of life was hardly used in studying nature: one classified natural beings, whether living or non-living, in a vast hierarchical tableau which went from minerals to man; the break between the minerals and the plants or animals was relatively undecided; epistemologically it was only important to fix their positions once and for all in an indisputable way."

>>3645724
" At the end of the eighteenth century, the description and analysis of these natural beings showed, through the use of more highly perfected instruments and the latest techniques, an entire domain of objects, an entire field of relations and processes which have enabled us to define the specificity of biology in the knowledge of nature. Can one say that research into life has finally constituted itself in biological science? Has the concept of life been responsible for the organisation of biological knowledge? I don't think so. It seems to me more likely that the transformations of biological knowledge at the end of the eighteenth century, were demonstrated on one hand by a whole series of new concepts for use in scientific discourse and on the other hand gave rise to a notion like that of life which has enabled us to designate, to delimit and to situate a certain type of scientific discourse, among other things. I would say that the notion of life is not a scientific concept; it has been an epistemological indicator of which the classifying, delimiting and other functions had an effect on scientific discussions, and not on what they were talking about:
Well, it seems to me that the notion of human nature is of the same type. It was not by studying human nature that linguists discovered the laws of consonant mutation, or Freud the principles of the analysis of dreams, or cultural anthropologists the structure of myths. In the history of knowledge, the notion of human nature seems to me mainly to have played the role of an epistemological indicator to designate certain types of discourse in relation to or in opposition to theology or biology or history. I would find it difficult to see in this a scientific concept."

>>3645717

It's such a joke how stupid the average university student is nowadays. All you have to do on 4chan is insult someones intelligence (wholly separate from the argument you're making against their claim) and they no longer believe they have to respond any further than greentexting "nice ad hominem" which is hilariously ironic because they've now side stepped your entire point by claiming you ignored the issue with an ad hominem lol

>>3645721

No. I stated that they are wrong because Capitalism is efficient and leads to great wealth and relatively fair distribution. I then tacked on at the end that most people who make anti capitalist arguments are ignorant/young and naive.

Nice reading comprehension though bud! You sure are good at selectively responding to bits of an argument and crying havoc when you suspect some sort of logical fallacy, hell you haven't even mentioned something you think is wrong with capitalism this entire argument!

>>3645718
>or there being people who have money that either worked for it or not, but who have more access to resources than they do

>people who have access to more resources than I do who did not work for them

Do they deserve these resources? If so, why? If not, why not? Here is where capitalism as an ideology fails, because it doesn't take into account those without resources.

>>3645721
He pointed out a correlation, rather than any causation. Funnily enough, isn't mistaking the two one of those logical fallacies you undergrads are so keen to bandy around?

>>3645737

You have the resources of your own body and willingness to work and learn. You're idea that an economic system should provide a life for everyone is retarded and will only lead to strife. An economic system is there to most efficiently mine wealth from the land and develop it into technological improvements, goods, food, services, comforts, etc.

>>3645733
>Capitalism is efficient and leads to great wealth

Profit is the lack of parity in debt paid to someone for labor.

The system is built on creating more stress to create more life to create a wider base to exploit. By creating gaps between humans the capitalist creates an ignorance that can be abused.

>>3645728
insulting someone, their intelligence or otherwise, is conceding the argument. That's the point of calling out an ad homineum attack.

You're basically admitting that your views are unworthy of being considered or addressed by socially mature people.

since it's an anonymous board though, you can always restate them politely and they'll be included in the discussion.

>mfw /lit/ doesn't know anything about capitalism

>>3645746
Yes, some of us do. Maybe you should read the thread?

>>3645745

You're really struggling now amigo. This is 4chan, I'm allowed to state my argument however I like and you're allowed to pretend that you "won" when I call you an idiot. I'm not interested in "winning" arguments, I'm only interested in presenting the truth.

>>3645733
You don't have an argument. "It's most in tune with human nature." "The state is the problem, not capitalism, and obviously there's no need to explain why!" "Capitalism has few flaws, and obviously there's no need to explain why!" "Those who dislike capitalism are probably edgy 14-year-olds."

You are human detritus. I've witness sea sponges display greater intellect. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. F-. Apply yourself.

>>3645737
deserving is tricky: you can say "earned" or "merited" and it works a little better.

It's certainly possible to be without resources through no fault of ones own, but that would'nt alter the other persons right to the resources they took part in creating or acquiring.

You can deserve something without anyone owing it to you.

>>3645746
I certainly hope you don't support it, joey jojo.

>>3645754
But he explained what he believed to be the flaws! Jesus! I have no real interest in this argument, but fucking hell. You've deliberately ignored everything he's actually said, instead choosing to focus solely on the bits where he was mean to you.

fucking hell, just grow up.

>>3645742
Funny you use that word "retarded." What about the retarded? The invalid? Those placed in a troubling situation through birth or natural disasters? Capitalism doesn't account for them, and so we have states try (and sometimes fail) to do so.

>>3645758
Anyone with half a braincell does.

>>3645709
Not necessarily. Calling out someone as unqualified to discuss a particular issue is valid. If you were discussing, say, specific issues to do with the environment and some actress started saying how the law regarding the environment should be, you could say she should stick to acting. Looks like an ad hominem but is effectively true because she is neither an environmental expert nor law maker. Similarly, a high school dropout could give their opinion on say university entrance exams or whatever but you could discount their input directly as a consequwnce of them being a dropout. Not everything directed to the man is necessarily an attemot to derail them; sometimes it's valid.

>>3645763
>my pose when

>>3645751
of course it's allowed to speak as you like, but remember you'll probably be ignored if you aren't either polite, witty , or very incisive in your observations. A genius can be a churl, but even he is advised against it.

What i mean is anytime you resort to personal insult, everyone pretty much automaticly discounts your intellect or maturity level to match the childish behavior. In other words, if you want to be rude, you'd better be indisputably correct, or the rudeness will make everyone ignore you. also, it's pointless most of the time anyway.

>>3645754

My argument is that in all of history there has never been a society as free and prosperous as that of the Western World today. This has been achieved through Capitalism. It's most in tune with human nature because it requires labour for profit and rewards ideas and personal property over a central planning committee providing for people as it sees fit.

I did explain why the state is the problem. If you read up on Capitalism you will see that massive government over spending and taxation to support things like unnecessary, inefficient social welfare programs and expensive foreign wars are harmful to an economy (and you can witness this in practice right now).

Capitalism has worked, period. The standards of living enjoyed in the western world today under societies based around freedom and democracy with an capitalist economy absolutely dickslap the standards of living anywhere else on earth and at any other period of history.

The onus of proof is actually on you to prove why this system is so bad when it has worked so phenomenally for so long.

>>3645763
>my pose when

>>3645756
That's dodging the core issue. Capitalism is unable to provide for everyone, regardless of how well it works for most. So what do you expect those not served by capitalism to do? Sit and take it, when they're bankrupted or born disabled or struck by a hurricane through no fault of their own? You can say, "Oh, well the state would provide for THAT", but once you introduce a state, you introduce all that comes along with it.

>>3645761

But nothing "accounts" for them. You don't understand, charity isn't an economic issue it's a social issue and you can have a capitalist society that provides through the state for the needy (which we have right now) without providing for everyone who wants a handout (which we also have right now, unfortunately).

>>3645780
Inversely capitalism exploits third world countries in order to stay afloat.

For example, when the Haitian populous voted in a referendum that would raise the minimum wage to a level that would be still too low to feed and clothe a family of three (let alone house), one of the revelations from the Wikileaks Cablegate thing was that the Obama administration sent a cable saying that such a raise was "unreasonable" (since companies like Levis wouldn't get as cheap of labor) and essentially strong armed the government into vetoing it or else face economic sanctions.

And that's not even to mention Africa or some Asian countries.

>>3645794
But that's not an inherent flaw in capitalism. That's a flaw in the corrupted, bloated abomination capitalism has become.

>>3645794

No "capitalism" does not exploit third world countries to stay afloat. That's complete goober speak. Certain states have exploited third world countries before but it doesn't lead to prosperity.

>>3645785
Depending on the person, they might want to pursue some other system, assuming capitalism isn't working for them. I grant you that. And why not? I'm sure there are many ways of making other strategies work for the individual who capitalism isn't right for. But they shouldn't attack it because it's not right for them; that's like cursing a pair of shoes because it doesn't fit. Let the capitalists be capitalists and do your own thing. and rejecting the state, or whatever, is perfectly acceptable as well.

>>3645780
As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, I argue catastrophes through pollution and overuse of natural resources will cause the end of capitalism - we can judge capitalism as great because we're living in it and reaping its rewards. When there's nothing left to reap, historians (if there are any remaining) will in turn say capitalism was one of the greatest disasters of all time. A whole cake tastes good while you're eating it. But when you realize that cake was supposed to last you all week, then what?

>>3645799

Right, it's like saying that the Soviet Union is an indictment of Communism. Communism is complete shit as far as economic theory is concerned but assuming that communism is shit because of the Soviet Union is fallacious.

>>3645804

Yes, but that's not really a capitalist issue is it? That's an issue of providing comfort and food to billions of human beings and the wear and tear on mother earth. Is it right for a state to restrict what people can consume and how they can live for environmental reasons?

>>3645788
>the needy
>handouts
>deserving

puh-leaze. Maybe you should set down your goalposts before someone treks to Timbuktu for you. Who decides who's deserving? Suddenly you see the problem. Last I checked, resource management, economies, and the welfare of the general public were completely intertwined.

>>3645801
Yes it does the only reason working conditions in US and similar countries aren't as bad as they were back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is because companies externalize these things to third world nations.

If it wasn't some dude in China making 5 cents an hour in a sweat shop, it would be you.

>>3645794
The fear was that the companies would leave haiti and there'd be massive unemployment requiring more bailout money.

Capital investment is predicated on making a profit. They won't go into a place where they can't do that or their competitors will undercut them. Just because a man deserves more money for a job doesn't mean i can afford to pay it to him. And if i can't I'll offer what i can and see if he accepts. If he rejects, I'll look elsewhere.

>>3645799
The natural tendency of capitalism is for everyone to become more economically equal and to for polarities to settle into liberty for everyone!

Aren't governments in economic competition with one another? Don't they wish to maximize profits as well? Why is it not capitalism when you apply the principles of capitalism to government policy?

>>3645802
The only alternative to capitalist nations are countries exploited by capitalist nations.

Wow great system!

>>3645816

>who decides who's deserving

That would be the people who earn money through their own labour Tim.

Welfare of the general public is something that an economic system provides generally by raising the standards of living by finding and exploiting the most efficient means of both producing and distributing wealth. Efficient as in, not through the statist middle man.

Providing for the truly needy is an issue for society and charities, and to a lesser extent the federal government.

>>3645811
If it's not capitalism's problem now, it soon will be, my friend.

>>3645804
anything that creates scarcity of anything serves capitalism. because it creates a supply and demand imbalance, which leads to differential access and therefore trade. The more material wealth exists, the less reason there is to fight over it, or make someone work for it.

>>3645827

No, it's a human issue. Humans want comfort and happiness and they want to live in climate controlled shelters, go to school, have proper medical aid, eat decent food and live enjoyable lives. Capitalism has sped the process of getting there up and industrial revolutions negatively impact the environment. Since you're sitting in a climate controlled shelter, on the internet on an expensive computer posting on 4chan you're obviously not someone who is minimizing his carbon footprint in the interests of the environmentalist cause.

>>3645824
capitalism itself, however, is an individual choice. The Amish exist in communes, and only engage in trade with the outside world, much they way communist countries did, so they're only very basically capitalists. No one will stop you if you want to opt out of the capitalist system in any nation, believe me.

>>3645820
Those companies are artificially keeping nations like Haiti from developing so that they can continue to use them for cheap labor. That way some fat American can buy their extra large blue jeans for a few dollars less, leaving them with more money to spend on inane bullshit they only want because of marketing pressure.

>>3645841
Amish farmers literally have their farms shut down by the US government because they drink unpasteurized milk.

There's no way to escape the system.

>>3645510
Revolution

>>3645826
>providing for the needy is an issue of society and charities

And where does the society draw upon for resources, in this case?

>>3645675
Oh god my sides
>As you can see there are no bird, they have been eaten
>Two friends sitting on body bags, they drink coffee made of snow
>This is how they live in modern day America: the poor, the cold, the lonely and the homosexuals
Such a silly country

>>3645766

No your first example is definitely an ad hominem and I suspect that you're mildly retarded.

>>3645859

Ugh, bro what are you even arguing? They draw their resources through whatever labour or investment they provide, or just their own capital.

>>3645841
>No one will stop you if you want to opt out of the capitalist system in any nation, believe me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

>>3645853

But that's not capitalism, that's the state, and those laws should be fought. People are confusing Capitalism as an economic theory/system with the government of the United States.

>>3645869

Jesus Christ get a load of this retard.

>>3645845
not really: evelopment is the ideal goal of most corporations for the thrid world, because devloped countries use resources more efficiently, make more money and purchase more products at higher prices. Right now the only way to make money from haiti is cheap labor and cheap raw materials. make everybody in haiti have a fifty thousand a year salary and there'd be a million things american corporations could sell them. Island nations make terrific customers. And automation can always replace labor if the demand is high enough to merit the initial investment.

>>3645862
He wasn't saying they're ignorant teens, he was saying they're LIKE ignorant teens

>>3645878

No I mean the example that an actress can't have a valid opinion on environmental laws because she isn't an expert on environmentalism or a law maker.

>>3645853
it's selling unpasteurized milk thats illegal. You can drink it all you want. just don't use it as a base for capitalism. And I deal with the Amish daily, soo I do know this from personal experience.

>>3645873
But the corporations are just using their free individual right to compete within a market.

>>3645877
the industries in developing countries have no interest in doing that developing, though.

An aluminum mining company doesn't care about development. It just wants to go about its business of mining aluminum for cheap. No more aluminum? Then get the fuck out of there, and fuck anyone who can't supply us with aluminum.

Nike for instance doesn't care if Thailand further develops. If it does, Nike will leave for a cheaper production facility. If not, then fine, good.

>>3645877
>development is the ideal goal of most corporations for the thrid world

My sides.

How much propaganda do you consume on a daily basis?

>>3645895
the weird thing is its the opposite that seems to be the case lately: industries in developing countries are desperate to modernize and automate, so they can employ fewer workers, pay them higher wages and avoid the problems that come when a market lull or reduction in demand cause them to have to lay off workers. Then they get strikes, protests, riots at these very "sweatshop" industries where workers have come to depend on the wages. It seems to them better to gradually replace workers with machines which can easily be idled in slack economic times without creating unrest and misery.

>>3645902
Third world markets are an untapped gold mine, if they only had something to buy products with. A wealthy, independant third world is the wet dream of every corporation in America, because automation is a lot mre readily available in america and those kinds of markets would justify the investment.

>Providing for the truly needy is an issue for society and charities, and to a lesser extent the federal government.

And this is always lacking and ineffective. People shouldn't be sacrificing time or money to charities.
Charities are a shell game that allows the rich to keep more money.

The goverment should be stepping in and setting up solutions and the people should be directing their goverment to do it.
This way jobs are created to solve the problem as well not having anyone lose money to an ideal that we should be "giving".

Corporations, even nonprofits are not anywhere near enough under regulation to be allowed to operate without the oversight that they already do.

Goverment transparency is the true issue, which allows them to claim that everything they do is good while doing the exact opposite of governing.

You make arguments about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater about capitalism, but id bet your anti goverment in general as well.

Capitalism implicitly requires there to be an underclass somewhere to exploit. Its a terrible system that does have any concern for the people's welfare.

Ahahaha. Keep debating. Your posts will surely start the revolution you're hoping for (j/k, you don't really want it, you're too comfortable ;) )

>>3645920
The alternatives are stateless socialism, which does not work, and state socialism, which I don't like.

>>3645915
>wouldn't capitalism be great if everyone was rich XD???

Yeah that's not how it works read more, consume less propaganda.

>>3645649
I hope you're trolling.

>>3645928
Great job being an unimaginative stooge.

>(j/k, you don't really want it, you're too comfortable ;) )

Mans greatest enemy, his comfort and complacency.
Mans greatest failing and best quality, addiction.

Also OP, you don't want to escape the horrors of capitalism.
You're asking the question we all come up against.
You want to escape the human condition and that has only one real way out.

>>3645941
What are your ideas? I personally really like the idea of distributism, but that's also not likely to work.

>>3645926
I'm working on an agricultural degree and I really would love to see capitalism end.

This is all very interesting but why is the MLP bullshit a product of capitalism, specifically?

>>3645740
>an appeal to age

>>3645970
It's not MLP itself that's so bad, it's the so called "bronies".

These people suffer from a special type of autism that only detached bourgeois parents can create.

>>3645976
I guess that's right. That's more the parents' fault, or at least directly their fault.

>>3645987
Material occultism is a direct consequence of capitalism, and is indeed one of its foremost goals.

>>3645993
>Material occultism
What does that mean?

>>3645995
The striving for and hording of money

>>3645995
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L63ddRHu6BI

>I guess that's right. That's more the parents' fault, or at least directly their fault.

I'm not sure it is really. Its probably more that men don't really have a movement that defines being masculine.

That and they probably fall in love with what is a woman/horse/voice/personality thing that they'll never have to actually meet and cannot disappoint.

>>3645998
You don't have to do that to live in capitalism, not even to live comfortably.
I'll concede that it is endemic of capitalism.

>>3646002
Is that capitalism's fault? The lack of a movement that defines being masculine.

>The lack of a movement that defines being masculine.

Nah its not capitalism fault directly. Its partly feminism as a movement that defines males sexuality as "creepy".
Not all forms of feminism do it, however since so many of them do it has led to masculinity being ill defined.

What makes a man a man? Before it was providing, being the household leader and holding the best jobs.
Perhaps the problem is that it started on a weak platform to begin with.
Maybe we just need to define what being human actually means altogether to avoid making it about sex.
Of course that means we would have to make compromises for both sides of the debate which most will not do.

just get a job doing some manual labor like landscaping and live on the bare essentials for a while

that'll straighten you out

>>3646023
I don't think we even can define what being human means, or that we should.
Providing, leading, and generally "being a man" should be what men get behind. It is an unfortunate shame that such things are at odds with feminism.

>Capitalism implicitly requires there to be an underclass somewhere to exploit.

Not true at all

>Its a terrible system that does have any concern for the people's welfare.

No system has concern for people's welfare you dumbs, all the system does is generate and distribute wealth, it's up to people to have concern for the welfare of others and as demonstrated in Europe and North America it exists and it exists in spades.

>>3645915
raw materials can be found, recycled or conserved, labor can be employed or replaced, but the absolute lifeblood of the capitalist system is markets, People have to be able to buy stuff or the whole thing falls apart. everyone being rich works great. And the richer everybody is, the better everything works,

Also, where does one find this propaganda you refer to?

>>3646105

The irony is that the propaganda they claim you've been indoctrinated by is much more prevalent amongst and aimed at people who would like to believe that Capitalism is the rich vs the poor and amounts to basically white people robbing and raping the other races in order to generate their wealth. Nothing could be further from the truth lol

>>3646115
ironically, I think capitalism isn't something you need to sell; the benefits are obvious. It's alternate systems that seem to require marketing strategies. Nobody's walking around with a t shirt with Andrew Carnegie's face on it. It isn;t necessary.

>>3646139

And yet if a supporter of Capitalism can't prove that living under a capitalist system will magically make everyones problems disappear forever while everyone walks around with perfectly equal wealth and goods you're considered to be somehow in the wrong by these childish advocates of marxism or what the fuck ever else.

>>3646105
>People have to be able to buy stuff or the whole thing falls apart

People also have to be willing to work for pennies a day so that the company can make a profit selling things to those who can afford to buy them.

That's where the exploitation comes in. lol if you think companies wouldn't exploit workers if there were no regulations just because it's "the nice thing to do".

Only thing keeping the west's labor conditions from being as low as they were back in the 19th century is state regulation, which forces companies to outsource to nations where those regulations and minimum wage laws don't exist.

>>3646206

But this isn't even close to being true... the exact opposite of what you're describing has taken place in the Western World during the last century or so.

>>3646215
What?

I said that the enactment of labor laws over the past century raised working standards in the west and forced companies to outsource their factories to countries where those laws don't exist so that they continue producing cheap goods.

Where am I wrong?

>>3646227

I honestly have no real problem with labour laws as long as unions don't get out of hand, I'm a free market capitalist but I haven't read many convincing arguments against workers rights/some unionization. So, whatever.

Where you were wrong is in saying that people have to be willing to work for pennies a day. A minimum wage job in Canada where I live provides me with more creature comforts, security, and calories than two thirds of the world enjoy.

>>3646244
>A minimum wage job in Canada where I live provides me with more creature comforts, security, and calories than two thirds of the world enjoy.

Yes that's exactly my point. You're only able to live so comfortably because two thirds of the world are working in factories for pennies a day mass producing the stuff you buy every day, a lot of it probably garbage that you only feel the need to buy because of artificial stresses created by advertising.

I'm not saying it's you that's being exploited by capitalists I'm saying that it's some sweatshop workers in India, China, etc. and miners and farmers in Africa, South America, etc.

I guess capitalism is okay if you're fine with other people being exploited and enslaved for your comfort, and wars being waged to drive your fucking gas prices down.

>>3646275

>being this autistic

>>3645510
>Implying you'd be able to adjust to socialism.
From what I've heard, it's extremely hard for someone raised in the US to adjust to other economic systems.

>>3646275

But that's not how it works...

>>3646286
>can't come up with a counter-argument

>>3646290
Yes it is. If I'm wrong explain how.

>>3646293

Explain how you're right? You just made the claim that I'm able to live by my government exploiting other nations. I've seen no evidence of this.

>>3646305
Where was your iPod made, dumbass?

>>3646305
Not by your government exploiting nations, by wealthy capitalists exploiting other nations. There's a difference.

Your government is the only thing forcing those capitalists to exploit citizens of less developed nations by preventing them from exploiting you yourself.

>I've seen no evidence of this.

Well fuck man, don't blame me for your ignorance. I can't do your research for you.

Start here I guess:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_system

>>3646339

So I make all my money from the restaurant I work in which takes money from paying customers voluntarily.

I spent it on;

>Rent
Supporting a local landlord/business

>Food
Almost all of it produced in the United States or Canada

>Clothing
I have a real interest in fashion and clothing and most of what I buy is second hand or made in America/Italy by people who earn a living wage

>Entertainment
I buy books from used book stores, download movies and music and buy books from local bookshops

So wait... what?

>>3646376
You own a computer. You probably own a cell phone, iPod, car, etc. as well.

The food you eat is produced by evil corporations like Monsanto who force Mexican and Central American farmers into poverty with shit like NAFTA and GMO's.

The restaurant customers who pay you receive their money through the exploitation of developing nations. The entire system around you depends on exploitation to keep itself from collapsing.

>>3646398

I own an ipod which are produced in America lol

The food I eat is produced by evil corporations? No it really isn't, not all food is produced by Monsanto bud.

They do? How do you know? Are you liberals really this fucking stupid? Canada has enough resources to support itself lol, there;s no exploitation going on for the most part.

>>3646401
>I own an ipod which are produced in America lol

You sure about that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/technology/28iht-ipod.1.6378095.html?_r=0

>No it really isn't, not all food is produced by Monsanto bud.

Unless you grow your own food you're eating something either directly or indirectly related to Monsanto.

Now stop being so retarded.

>>3646410

No I'm not lol, take off the tinfoil hat. Capitalism doesn't actually work by exploiting third world nations, it works by giving people the incentive to work and develop technology to make the best and most efficient use of natural resources.

>>3646419
Wow it's like you've never actually read a book before. Did you stumble over here from another board by mistake?

>>>/b/
>>>/pol/
>>>/soc/

>>3646421
he's obviously trolling

>>3646419
I promise you, I'm asking you this with no amount of contempt or sarcasm. Are you 18 or younger?

>>3646427
no because only people that young would be stupid enough to be a gommie

t. not that poster but another guy who finds you pink bastards disgusting

>>3646427
>>3646423
>>3646421

Stay clueless, children.

>>3646398
>The food you eat is produced by evil corporations like Monsanto who force Mexican and Central American farmers into poverty with shit like NAFTA and GMO's.
>The restaurant customers who pay you receive their money through the exploitation of developing nations. The entire system around you depends on exploitation to keep itself from collapsing.

I love exploiting human trash.

>>3646527
Well if Randroids have their way it will be you getting exploited rather than third-worlders.

If you're rich and a gommie, you're bored and edgy.

If you're poor and gommie, you're jealous and angry.

Both of these feelings are justified but it doesn't mean that capitalism is malum in se.

Just something that needs to be tweaked and pushed in the right direction at times.

>>3646531
le epic ruse brethren sir XDD !!!

>>3646528

Third worlders aren't being exploited by first worlders though, there isn't anything to support that idea except the fact that we live in comfort and they largely do not.

>>3646565
>there isn't anything to support that idea

Except there is and you're retarded if you think otherwise.

No... there isn't. The implication is that the only way a country can be impoverished is by being exploited and it just isn't true. These countries don't have efficient industry, good, and accessible education, proper healthcare or the sorts of things we have in the west.

There's a multitude of reasons for this, but most of it stems from the people no instituting a democratic form of government and suffering for ages under tyrants and the inefficiencies/whims of dictatorships. The west pours trillions of dollars of aid money into those shitholes and even exports businesses there to employ (you say exploit, but often when a sweatshop is closed down the workers have to become prostitutes, or unemployed) people who wouldn't have a job otherwise.

Freedom of the people and markets leads to economic freedom and prosperity. Education and industrialization are what propel nations from impoverishment to first world.

>>3645510 well you are on a computer so I guess you could just not use that anymore

>>3646572
>There's a multitude of reasons for this, but most of it stems from the people no instituting a democratic form of government and suffering for ages under tyrants and the inefficiencies/whims of dictatorships.
Now think for half a second why that happened.

>The west pours trillions of dollars of aid money into those shitholes and even exports businesses there to employ (you say exploit, but often when a sweatshop is closed down the workers have to become prostitutes, or unemployed) people who wouldn't have a job otherwise.

Last time I checked, Barrick Gold didn't employ national workforce.

>Freedom of the people and markets leads to economic freedom and prosperity.
Do explain how economic freedom leads to prosperity

>Education and industrialization are what propel nations from impoverishment to first world.
How can you say this in the age of financial activity? I don't even think a libertarian would agree.

>>3646572
>These countries don't have efficient industry, good, and accessible education, proper healthcare or the sorts of things we have in the west.

Yeah because they've been treated as colonies and pseudo-colonies for centuries by imperialistic western powers who intentionally stunted their development for the benefit of the capitalist system.

But yeah sure more capitalism is the answer, I'll take your word for it. Maybe read a book or two before posting on /lit/ about "gommies", or graduate high school at least.

>>3646579

>Now think for a second why that happened

It's a complicated case by case issue, a lot of it stems from the cultures that perpetrate these societies having different values from those of the largely Judeo-Christian west. Are you implying that for the last five thousand years the western world has been pushing nations and peoples into the gutter through military force and stealing all of the resources? That's quite simply laughably untrue.

>Do explain how economic freedom leads to prosperity

This is honestly like asking me to explain how drinking water cures dehydration. There can't be prosperity for the masses without economic freedom. I doubt you even know what that term means.

>How can you say that in the age of financial activity?

I don't understand this question... it's really really basic that application of technology improves the efficiency of labour. One dude with a shovel can feed himself, maybe a few others, but the same guy with a tractor will feed his village. Education is obviously essential for an informed society to partake in democratic elections and fill a variety of important positions.

>>3646583 You can only stunt growth where there actually is growth. Most of the former western colonies have done nothing but stagnate out devolve into barbarism. Now some like India gained greatly in the end. like how widow burning used to be a tradition in India before the West came in.

>>3646583
Does the Western exploitation of the world anger you?

>>3646583

Have fun with all the left tard propaganda that genuinely has no basis in reality. I'm sure India and China adopting capitalism recently has nothing to do with their huge leaps in productivity and economic success.

Hell look at Hong Kong! You would think it would be much worse than China right now right? I mean it was a Colony up til not long ago... but oh... it's doing much better than China is and is one of the freest and most dynamic markets on earth... better ignore that lol

Better ignore Indias caste system, better ignore the better part of the third world being unstable nations ruled by warring dictators/royal families. Yeh... lol it's all whiteys fault, that's why they don't have any prosperity or democracy lol

>>3646598
If China and India are so great feel free to move there and get a job in one of their sweat shops.

Also you are clinically retarded if you don't believe the instability in Africa was caused by Europe's imperialism.

>>3646603

They aren't so great, but they are better than they have been for a very long time. Both countries need serious industrialization and China needs to make a massive cultural shift towards individual rights and freedom.

Japan
Canada
Germany
Sweden
Denmark
Holland
Norway

All of these prosperous first world nations are leaders in technology and education. The wealth of a nation is not derived through exploitation but of smart handling of natural resources and educating a workforce to perpetuate the economy.

Have fun with your white guilt that fly's defiantly in the face of history and logic though.

>>3646608

The instability of Africa has absolutely nothing to do with Europes imperialism. I would actually be interested in seeing you source something so I could read up on the indoctrination you libtard white guilters are into these days.

A majority of Africans still prefer to visit tribal witch doctors over real practitioners of medicine. Maybe it's stuff like this that is preventing Africa from becoming economically/politically sound?

lol hey I think I found one of the "books" you guys wanted me to read

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_come_Africa_is_so_poor

ahahahhaha

Hey here's a little colony you guys might know I think... they aren't a colony anymore and they used capitalism to become the wealthiest nation on earth for a very long time.

DAMN THOSE COLONIALIST EUROPEANS MAKING COUNTRIES PERMANENTLY IMPOVERISHED WITH THEIR DAMN POLICIES!!!!

It's called... America, and it's something I don't joke about *spits*

>>3646616
>>3646614
Wow except you guys are completely fucking wrong and retarded.

The Europeans colonized Africa and drew arbitrary borders with no regards to ethnic groups, resulting in ethnic tension like between the Tutsis and Hutu, then they pulled out leaving these African nations in shambles making no attempt to help set up democracies leaving them as fair game for corrupt military regimes to take over.

Then, on top of the instability they created, they also left these nations with little to no resources to actually use for themselves for their own economy to develop.

>>3646629

Sorry dude but it's been hundreds of years. The people in Africa have had plenty of time to get their shit together. There have been plenty of cases of invasions, occupations, ransacking, pillaging, enslavement and colonialization all over the world but people get over it. If Africans can't read and want to practice tribal medicine and fight each other for decades because they're from different tribes it's not whitey's fault.

>>3646634
>it's been hundreds of years

I'm sorry, but what? I'm not even going to argue with you anymore you're retarded.

Maybe try reading a book or something for once instead of getting all your information secondhand from /pol/.

>>3646629
>for corrupt military regimes to take over.
Run by? Run by Africans.
>they also left these nations with little to no resources to actually use for themselves for their own economy to develop.
You fucking daft? Africa is filled to the brim with natural resources. Maybe you meant infrastructure, in which case you'd still be wrong. Go read up on African railroads dipshit.

>>3646638
>/pol/

There goes /lit/ mentioning /pol/ again.

>>3646638

Well all right, not hundreds, but it's been decades. I mean look at Hong Kong and look at Liberia... how come Liberia is one of the shittiest countries on earth and Hong Kong is advancing rapidly to a first world nation?

>mfw amerifat conservitards turned this into an argument about black people

you'd think you guys would want to break free of the stereotypes or something

>>3646647

Also your assumption is resting on the idea that most African nations and nations like India were wealthy and prosperous before European colonialization when they were definitely not.

>>3646645
>turns an argument about capitalist exploitation into an argument about the alleged inferiority of black people

Yeah there's not much doubt it's /pol/.

>>3646651

Nobody said black people were inferior. Somebody said that Africa hasn't developed very well which is what's hurting their economy and that even though colonialism has been a problem in the past many former colonies are doing well economically now, whereas Africa is doing the absolute worst.

>>3646653
africa is nowhere near the worst.

>>3646664

Sub Sahara Africa is pretty much the worst. North Korea is one big concentration camp though.

>>3646651
>turns an argument about capitalist exploitation into an argument about the alleged inferiority of black people
>Yeah there's not much doubt it's /pol/.

Your reading comprehension is poor and /pol/ isn't here.

*fart*

>>3645523
North Korea is state capitalist.
Guess what? Everything you wanted to escape your boss for, it's just the same, only the president is the boss. And of course "free" capitalists pretend like they're communist, because it makes them feel validated in their pointless drudgery.

>>3645510
Actually there are cooperates and squatter communities all around, this is true for Europe, and I imagine it would be for the US. Search on squatting, no income living, etc., and try to find things in your vicinity.

>>3645649
Capitalism does not offer "the vast majority" either freedom or the ability to earn a living vage. To the extend that most people in the US and Western Europe have even basic health and living expenses ensured, this is based on the exploitation or 3rd world workers. Both of those facts may be fine to you, but they do not objective imply that capitalism creates either freedom or affluence, despite the enormous cost to commons and global environment.

>>3645680
If it will make them buy ponies and male porn/prostitutes, it's all in the package.

>>3645683
Are you trolling, or really that stupid?

>>3645717
Honestly, there is a discrepancy between distribution by individual initiative, which is productive of growth and wealth of communities, and the accumulation of wealth by means of control of resources. What astounds me is that "liberalists" insists on the necessity for the individual to hog as much as absolutely possible, creating individual rennaisance style prince wealth, while the protestant puritanism largely prevents them from displaying this wealth through public works. What imaginary world do they see this as a feasible long term economic strategy? If they won't allow for a mixed economic system, I don't see how they expect either a fascist or communist style government to be the end result?

>>3645718
We now have an industrialized, mechanized society, that could supply the living necessities of everybody. Why should I work so that Bill G can feel generous giving a couple o mill in charity to the staving, while he is fundamentally what is wrong with the economic system? Taking an open source programming platform and making billions from monetizing it. That is what capitalism is about, and why people who really just care for a living and thought and creative freedom NEED an alternative.

>>3645728
If you're so smart, state your facts without ad hominems and stop whining.

>>3646738

How is it based in the exploitation of third worlders? Are you people all high or just stupid?

>>3646837
Let me guess, you slept through the globalism international politics phase?

the question might be, "how can i escape the horrors of corruption?"

isnt the problem summarized in the fact that free market capitalism hasnt got moral values?

>>3646926
Of course it has moral values, they are implicit.

>>3645709
>You don't even know what an ad hominem is you fucking piece of garbage.

still giving lectures on an imageboard on ad hominem

>>3645799

This post is the opposite of true.

It is 100% an inherent working flaw of capitalism that demands capitalists exploit third world labors low wages. They have no choice but to do it in order to survive or they extract no surplus and get their capital swallowed up as they disappear.

If you think capitalism can exist without the badness caused by Foxconn and labor camps and the coltan mines of Sub-Saharan Africa you are massively mistaken. They are one of the key cogs that hold the system together. They are the system working perfectly.

never been a major anti-capitalism kind of guy, but I've always been a huge Dead Kennedys fan and I've recently fallen in love with Jello Biafra's Become the Media and If Evolution is Outlawed spoken word albums. Check out a bit of it on youtube. It gives me a lot of hope and might inspire me to make some changes.

>>3646988

They really aren't... Some corporations take advantage of third world labour but it's hardly what holds the system together.

>>3645510

Capitalism is good.

>>3647060
All major resource and production areas are in the 3rd world, especially around free trade zones, where there are no labor unions or regulations, no minimum wage, minimum hours, or any of things I would count as basic necessities. Sure, there are token high end production industries, etc. in the developed world, but the consumer cornucopia we take for granted is based minimal cost production in the third world.

>>3647076

Sausages taste good. Pork chops taste
good.

>>3647078
the reason they can't get higher wages is called the "John Henry Effect" they're competing with machines, and the machines will inevitably win. There's nor reeal economic reason why bangladesh or rwanda can't be the next idaho or japan, the problem is the way theyre governed, and that's not a capitalist thing. Capitalism isn't a political system; it's a way of realizing the benefits of production and trade and preserving and increasing the value of labor and good. It's a way of maximizing returns. Corporations might have used and still use, political pressures in the service of those ends, but it's not the system that's the problem. The fault is not in our economics, but in ourselves. If you want to change people exploiting people, either the trader's paradise of the Belgian colonies, or the workers paradise of the Khmer rouge, the problem is in human nature. Market strategies don't kill people, people do.

>>3647090
Pigs are clean animals. Take your judeo-christian values elsewhere, life-denier.

>>3647098
Yeah, it's called robosourcing, and it's a an issue that needs to be considered. There's a concern that at some point in the future, a handful of people will own all the machines, and will completely control the means of production. Nobody else will be able to make money.

The only real way of preventing it, that I can think of, is if 3D printing advances to the point that every man and woman is capable of cheaply creating machinery with which to produce their product, and thus preventing a monopoly on production from developing.

>>3647098
>maximizing return
shareholder value ideology is more than that.
they dont accept anything below 25% returns (as proclaimed by former Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackermann) and stop investing in everything that doesnt meet their batshit insane profit fantasies. it's a destructive ideology of the rich that destroys profitable companies.

>>3646937
can you explain to me how the goal of maximizing profits and moral values go together?

This model of global capitalism is a humanitarian disaster. Free-market economics consistently pushes out any good money to make room for the bad. i.e. the companies paying there workers fairly go out of business, the companies that are more aware of the environment give way to exploitative companies.
The whole project of compound growth every year, of three percent in the UK, is absurd and Utopian.
I agree with J.S. Mill on this one, there comes a time when economies become stationary. At this point human and social growth can still go on.

ITT: Pro-capitalists who turn down major criticism on capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism

>>3646738
>based on the exploitation of 3rd world workers

lel

>>3646639
>africa has some railroads
>THEY HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE!!!

Do you even know what you're talking about?

>>3647117
You're getting close to the answer. The trick is in the way patents work. It will soon be impossible for all the machines to be owned by even the top half of society, because things are, paradoxically, becoming obsolete so fast, yet still staying useful. In another generation any worker will be able to own any means of production, distribution, marketing or packaging for a trivial amount of money. We're already there in so many industries it's not funny.

The problem that capitalism and all other systems will have to deal with in the coming century is what happens when there are no poor people? How do you run an economy where the richest man has a million times more than he needs, and the poorest has only a dozen times more than he needs?

That's the treand we're staring down the barrel of, and it's only going to grow. We are giving away to the poorest people on earth things that it us3d to take a working class family half a month's wages to buy. Because the manufacturing is automated and the raw materials are so cheap. Nobody is saving a month for a new shirt now. And nobody is saving a year for a bicycle. And a hundred years ago, everybody was.

>>3647098
>>3647117
You're both really overestimating the scope of automated production. Check that fetishisation at the door please.

>>3647393
You honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

>>3647400
I honestly have a very good idea, but you can still believe what you want.

>>3647407
I don't think anyone at all was talking about automated production as it stands now, but more what it could potentially turn into.

Would you like to explain your criticisms? Or would you rather just tell us all how clever you are and leave it at that?

>>3647393
It's not the scope: it's the trend. Look at the items that literally have to be assembled and made by machines now compared to the same type of thing even twenty years ago. then go back twenty years before that. It's not plateauing, it's becoming exponential. That's why there's as much of a work shortage among unskilled labor and an administrative overgrowth in every corporation. You yourself can probably list thirty jobs that don't exist any more because of automation right off the top of your head. And thirty more that won't exist in twenty years.andnot just downsizing in certain fields, but actual specializations that have gone the way of milkmen and elevator operators. That's only going to increase. Watch a movie from the thirties or the fifties and count the jobs you see people doing that nobody does anymore. It's enlightening.

You right i probably don't know everything about automation or it's impact on manufacturing, I think I have read maybe twenty books on it, and a ton of journal articles, but nothing like a hundredth of what's been written or that you've probably read, but even with the little bit I've managed to accumulate tthe trends are obvious. Just think back to the factories you probably worked in in the seventies: recall how things were done and the jobs people had, then look around you at the ones you deal with now. Different, isn't it? and a lot more automated and efficient.

>>3647412
>Or would you rather just tell us all how clever you are and leave it at that?
Yes, because clearly that is what is happening here.
>I don't think anyone at all was talking about automated production as it stands now, but more what it could potentially turn into.
There's some things automation can do very well, but many things it can't. Fundamentally, what automation brings is consistency rather than optimisation, this is why many things are not automated, and this has been discussed to death on /lit/ before. The posts above just don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Why are right-wingers so fucking stupid?

This is why the Soviet Union went full totalitarian.

>>3647433
>It's not the scope: it's the trend.
>trend
"Any calm person who is not blind or idiotic can see that 742 years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and 3 quarters long" -Mark Twain

>>3647446
Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous scientific people, and `let on' to prove what had occurred in the remote past by what had occurred in a given time in the recent past, or what will occur in the far future by what has occurred in late years, what an opportunity is here! Geology never had such a chance, nor such exact data to argue from! Nor `development of species', either! Glacial epochs are great things, but they are vague--vague. Please observe. In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. This is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

>>3647438
I think there's a lack of understanding here, but i'm not sure which side it's on. I'm the one suggesting that the mississippi will keep flowing and you're the one that's suggesting it will stop.

It could simply be a failure of imagination, or a lack of perspective, but look back at your own life: Think about the jobs your dad and granddad did. My great grandpa was a peddler, he used to sell sewing notions and spices out of a backpack, and carry news because the people he was selling to lived inplaces roads and the mail didn't go, and they mostly couldn't read. I used to walk his route with him and he covered about thirteen miles and twenty or so houses a day. My grandpa worked the railroads as a brakeman. Only unions keep that job in existance at all today. And he wasn't doing that much then. My dad picked up milk in a truck from small farms in big steel cans and took it to a dairy processing center. My secodn job was sharpening farm tools and plows and mending draft harness. Now I work on a machine that didn't exist ten years ago, and teach cad/cam to guys who's careers stopped existing last year.

You are the one who fails to understand: the momentum of the river, the vloume of the river is unstoppable. In twenty years a machine will be wiping your ass. be ready.

>>3645510
Get declared insane. Find a nice humble place to live. Set it up comfortably, live frugally of mentalbux, spend your days with idle little pleasures.

>>3647493
What romantic bullshitting. My grandmother hand wound coils for electronics, and lo and behold there are still both machine wound and hand wound coils, just like there's still hand woven and machine woven denim, just like pretty much everything else. In some applications, even stuff like screws are still hand made ffs. You're just fetishizing new shit without any regard for reality, context, practice etc.

>>3647528
>>3647528
either you are the moron you've been pretending to be, or you're just deluding yourself.

and you're accusing me of doing what you're doing. Is this trollery? Are you really not being serious? You're looking at an ocean, and saying: "well, it's dry in my pocket."

In what sense is any of this fetishistic, or for that matter romantic? And how in the world could romanticising the past and fetishizing the future be in any way compatible? THINK before you comment this time.

I should write a book about my political evolution. I was raised in a moderate to conservative environment, joined the the military, became a radical, involved in Occupy, etc. Now I've come full circle since 2011 and am back to being a Liberal (classical usage, contemporary usage, maybe a moderate) but qualified in the sense that I still retain Ideological Criticism.

Ex-radicals really rankle the radicals, and confirmation bias might guarantee some Liberals would buy my book. It could be a combination of The Captive Mind, a Marx Reader, and an autobiography.

What should I call it?

I want to get off the Jews wild ride.

>>3647540
I'm sorry, did I touch a nerve? You seem to have started posting gibberish and personal attacks.

>In what sense is any of this fetishistic, or for that matter romantic?
Between putting automated production on a pedestal and when criticised trying to rejustify it as something to do with the momentum of a river without tackling the criticism itself, it's clearly both. You're not alone, let's face it, a lot of the modernist movement was about doing what you're doing. But it's still flying car bullshit.

>>3647586
I sorry if it seems personal, i guess its just hard for me to believe you're, I mean, I don't know what to say. It would come as a personal attack again.

To me, the stuff your saying is like a guy looking out a window, seeing a street full of people driving and walking and going about their lives and saying: "There's nothing there but dinosaurs. You;'re kidding yourself. Or if I told you I had really liked Moby Dick, and you said, not it's terrible or it's overrated, but "There's no such book: Moby Dick is a type of salad. You're just being chartreuse."

I reelaize there's a failure to communicate here, but I'm pretty sure I'm making sense..

And i think you were the one that started the personal attacks, actually.


Bullshitting, sure, but romantic, really? that's pretty low.

also, how do you consider romanticizing the past and the future to be compatible. That's one I'd like to understand.

and can we get a third party analysis? Am I the only one that doesn't get this?

>>3647546
I Was A Teenage Reactionary

>>3647605
I'm not being funny, but there is a lot of bullshit above. I mean, Japan succeeding BECAUSE of automation? The American paradigm with the old Fordist lines were heavy on the automation, the Japanese succeeded through quality and reducing inventory. Not that automation can't have a place in such systems, but it works where it works and isn't implemented for its own sake.

>And i think you were the one that started the personal attacks, actually.
If I wanted to bring out personal attacks, I'd have pointed out that if you truly had great understanding of all this, you'd probably be management and not a tech training CAD/CAM techs.

>>3647641
Well, I am the head of my department, and I was the general manager before I got too old for that much stress and moved into tech and training. If you want an idea of my job, picture Lucious Fox. In fact, morgan freeman would be a good actor to play me if they made a movie about me.


But what you're saying really does sound to me like a forest for the trees, picking examples out of a hat that show no real pattern thing.

You bring up flying cars for instance, even though we've progressed far, far beyond flying cars since they were invented in the fifties. And, like jetpacks, turned out not to be that great an idea.

I'm really not being nostalgic and wishing we could bring back milkmen or flying cars or elevator operators. they all turned out to be pointless, unworkable technology and got supplanted And that trend is continuous, and has been accelerating in my own lifetime till the very idea of "future Shock" as Tofler called it in the seventies, is more like "future expectation". We now KNOW the changes will happen, and where they will come from.

I admit i was surprised out how much cleaner and safer and less polluted it all got, and how much cheaper and better things are, but the change I came to expect.

I wish I could explain it well enough to make you see it too. To me, and anyone from my generation, it's obvious. This is a golden age, and it's only getting better, for everybody.

>>3645649
>>3645670
>>3646837

Daily reminder that this is a murrican board...

This thread gone too far kids.

>>3647666
>You bring up flying cars for instance, even though we've progressed far, far beyond flying cars since they were invented in the fifties. And, like jetpacks, turned out not to be that great an idea.
That's not what flying car bullshit means brah. To put it another way, okay you may have liked the replicators in Star Trek, but they're no more imminent irl than warp speed. And you do seem to think automation is some kind of universal assembler when it really isn't, any more than a lathe is the best tool for every job.

>Well, I am the head of my department
Not what I'm talking about.

>and I was the general manager before I got too old
So you're saying you became too out of touch? My own view on this isn't anything radical either, it's a pretty standard view as far as management practice goes.

>>3647717
Not out of touch, just tired of all the nonsense. I turned the reins over to two of my department managers and moved down to research and retraining when the old guy retired. Research is where i started and retraining got combined in when we started becoming more a service and supply and less a manufacturing company. Research is my strong suit: I've never misscalled a trend in thirty years, though admittedly a lot of that is staying on the safe side. I have missed some things by being too conservative. But hell, I AM conservative. I have a painting of Barry Goldwater.

and the automation revolution I'm talking about has already happened. It's just that the effects haven't been fully realized yet. Give it ten years and check back with me.

>>3647791
>Not out of touch, just tired of all the nonsense.
>Not out of touch, just out of touch
Pic related.
>and the automation revolution I'm talking about has already happened. It's just that the effects haven't been fully realized yet. Give it ten years and check back with me.
And you'll still be peddling the same bullshit then, and in another ten, and no doubt you were ten years ago.

>>3647810
nah. I need to saty ahead of the curve, remember? And so far, i always have.

That's why I wasn't getting you calling me out on being nostalgic or romantic and stuff about the days of old, and then saying i was fetishising the tech of the future. those seem to me to be incompatible attacks, and I'm pretty sure I don't do either one. I mean, I still have my tack repair tools, but i don't expect horse drawn carriages to make a comeback.

My attitude, opinion, and position on things in general is this: When I was a kid, things sucked for everybody, but I was a kid, so I didn't know that. as I've aged, everything has gotten better for everybody, all over the world. Right now is the best things have ever been in my lifetime for everybody in general, and I expect it to continue to get better, as it always has in my experience. I attribute a lot of this to technology and automation.

>>3647842
>what are Greece, Spain, Portugal
>what are the multiple mid-eastern countries that fell victim of fundamentalism because of american occupation
>what is wage repression
>what is the slow increase in unemployment in most countries since the '90s
>what are latin american countries having a massive GDP and quality of life increase, thanks to socialist governments

>>3647878
see what I mean? the only places you can find where things have gotten worse are where things have regressed for some reason. and even there, it's a temporary glitch. You could have used cuba too, or yugoslavia in tito's day, or franco's spain. Even in the three at the top of your list, the quallity of life has increased to an insane degree, just in the last fifty years,

the increase in unemployment is trivial, especially since part of that is due to occupations disappearing like I've been pointing out. Wages, repressed or not, still buy three times more of much higher quality food, clothing and echnology or anything else than they ever did, as you can verify yourself by comparing price and wage lists from the sixties with now.

and as you yourself point out, even tho commies are starting to improve.

>>3647878
I guess i should, as athe only guy who remembers the old days clearly, address the point of capitalism versus communism, and why so many of us older guys are so vitriolic about it.

The only communism we knew, or heard about, was the USSR and the warsaw pact, China, North Korea, Yugoslavia, Cambodia Viet Nam and Cuba. All those places were directly and brutally coercive to their people. If you wanted to leave for the most part, they shot you. And while being a communist was frowned upon, and in the fifties could get you fired, nobody tried to lock you up or shoot you for it, and after the sixties it was just a matter of choice. You could get up in the morning and decide "I'm going to be a communist" and nobody would try to stop you. You can do that now: buy some land, recruit some like-minded people and start a commune on any basis you choose. if it succeeds, expand it and start others. You can't do that in communist countries: they won't even let you start a competing commune. let alone trying to be a capitalist. That has colored my generations whole picture of the socialistic or communistic alternatives.

i would still say the only way to change the system is from the bottom: the top only results in evil of epic proportions. Start your socialism locally: if it succeds it will be copied and become the standard. if not then not.

>>3647909
>the only places you can find where things have gotten worse are where things have regressed
This is very good platitude based reasoning. I look forward to when you move onto truisms.

I also especially liked the claims of inconsistency above from a progressive conservative.

>>3647957
You're actively trying to conflate the idea of communism (communal possession of capital/resources) with the idea of a "commune", which is more related to sovietism if anything.

>>3647957
i guess capitalism is not such a bad thing. The evil things is those that came after capitalism: consumerism, imperialism, globalism.. and other isms..

>>3647909
>You could have used cuba too, or yugoslavia in tito's day

>>3648002
In most communes thee is communal ownership of capital and resources. That's where marx got the idea, and it's not that bad an idea. It just doesn't seem to work too well in populations bigger than a thousand people or so. There might, with modern technology and ample resources, which is where we're headed, make it work for larger numbers. that was where lenin and all the others went wrong though, and marx of course: that saw it as essentially a political issue, when its really more of an economic choice.

Iadmit the "where things have regressed" thing sounds a bit tautological I meant in terms of social and technological things, like pol pot's agrarianization, and the fundamentalist islamists social ideas.

And while I'm certainly a conservative, I don't go back as far as the Progressive Party. Teddy Roosevelt can keep them: I'm a Goldwater Republican.

still not sure where you disagree on communism versus communes. A commune is how you start communism: people pool their resources and capital for the general good. It doesn't except in pathological cases like the ones I listed, involve taking over other people's stuff and trying to force them to be communists. That's what has been wrong with it always before, and it's the main thing people resist.

>>3648015

Imperialism is far older than capitalism, and in a lot of forms even predates mercantilism.

consumerism and globalism have been mostly good things, though there have been hitches in the development.

>>3648016
Hey, I acknowledged ol' tailgunner! Don't tar me with that brush!

>>3645510
try to live on the fringe of it. enjoy what you must. and only participate in it as much as you must

>/lit/ discussing politics and economics

>>3648121
>still not sure where you disagree on communism versus communes. A commune is how you start communism: people pool their resources and capital for the general good. It doesn't except in pathological cases like the ones I listed, involve taking over other people's stuff and trying to force them to be communists. That's what has been wrong with it always before, and it's the main thing people resist.
This reads like someone who's only familiar with Marx's work through hearsay talking about it. Very weird.

>>3648220
I've only read Capital and the manifesto, and a couple of histories, so I'm not the best authority by any means. I do know a lot about the origins of communism though, from medieval times up to the Paris Commune.

>>3648264
>I do know a lot about the origins of communism though, from medieval times up to the Paris Commune.
Yeah yeah, whatever.

>>3648268
hey, you gotta go to the source: some of those communes lasted into the twentieth century. If you want to learn about workers owning the means of production, and communal property, start with a successful model.

>>3648277
Most successful communists (as in communists that live in communes) usually have something other than revolutionary zeal motivating them to give their lives to the greater good.

Observe the Amish, or the kibbutzvim. Successful models, but what kept them together was a unifying identity and a concurrent outside threat to keep people from straying in line. The Amish have puritan Christianity and modern society. The kibbutzniks had Zionism and the Arab world.

Same thing for state socialists. The best (I.e. those that have stayed in power) did so through nationalism, not communism. Cuba, Vietnam, Stalin's Russia all milked nationalism to shore up socialism.

I'm not saying that socialism can't exist - it has, and will continue to exist. But it does this best by supporting itself with an independent power base to motivate people.

>>3648177
The last time I believed this, I ended up reading CrimethInc. and believing their bullshit to be a good idea.

Institutions are not boogeymen. They're tools. Use them for your own purposes if you hate capitalism. If you drop out of society, you are writing yourself off as irrelevant to society.

>>3645649

DISREGARD THAT I AYN RAND! (and suck cock)

illuminati

>>3645702

>conflating the construct of a rigid "human nature" that nicely fits an ideological system with the far more diverse current state of biological and psychological research

people like you give science cancer

>>3648339
>you are writing yourself off as irrelevant to society.
My goodness must not be irrelevant to society.

>>3648339
>Institutions are not boogeymen. They're tools.
This. Why would you get rid of society? It's easily manipulated to your liking.

>>3648410
There's a good worker. Now get back to oiling those cogs

>>3645709
>You don't even know what an ad hominem is you fucking piece of garbage.
>FUCK I hate explaining this to you people over and over but here goes.
>An ad hominem is a fallacious argument if someone else uses it. For example if someone is a high school drop out and someone else says "you are wrong because you are a high school drop out" that is an ad hominem.
>What I did was stated my point about capitalism and added at the end my view that most people who make the arguments typically seen as anti capitalist are uneducated and those opinions tend to be ignorant. But this is not an ad hominem because I used it.
>Learn the difference, it could save your life.

>>3648417
jokes on u i'm a lumpenprole

>>3645760
>But he explained what he believed to be the flaws!

no he didn't. He excuses the catastrophic effects capitalism has on the majority on mankind by claiming that they are caused by an arbitrary phenomenon he labels corporatism. (propably since "it's all the jews fault" has lately gone out of style with the apologetics of capitalist ideology)

I hereby make a similar claim. Stalinism is a sound system that benefits everyone. Terror and death camps are arbitrary effects caused by trotzkism, and are not inherent to the stalinist system.

learn2ideologycritique

>>3645766
>Calling out someone as unqualified to discuss a particular issue =/= making fictious claims about the other side of an argument, to attack any possible counter argument

>>3645780

>Capitalism exploits the fuck out of the majpority of people to benefit a minority, and I am Ok with this.

This is your argument. And this is a valid stance. But please leave me alone with that bullshit about human natur

>>3648482

>>3646244

>A minimum wage job in Canada where I live provides me with more creature comforts, security, and calories than two thirds of the world enjoy.

>enjoys social benefits that labour organizations worldwide fought for sinde mid 19th century up to WWII.

>people died fighting for this minimum of dignity you enjoy

>nah just kidding it was just the hidden hand of the free market and cpitalism automatically leads to this

learn2history

>>3646376

single restaurant =/= entire economic system

I Run a bookshop and try to do it as ethically as possible. So no wage slaves in my storage.

But a single bookshop or restaurant hardly has implications on a globalized economic level.

I have a small buisness and I still think capitalism needs to be abolished.

>>3646565

yep, because first world has had strong labour movements last century, first world workers have it better.

>>3648620
If the guy you responded to is still on, inb4 he champions the petit-bourgeois even more. As a small business owner, you're probably Jesus or something.

>>3648620
All employed people who aren't independently wealthy are wage slaves.

>>3645742
>An economic system is there to most efficiently mine wealth from the land and develop it into technological improvements, goods, food, services, comforts, etc.
Isn't that precisely a capitalist assumption ?

>>3646614

just a quick fix from a germn as you are listing my country. germany has no important natural resources to speak of. We import resources gained by exploitation of third world workrers and use them to manufacture goods.

Also last time I checked we were pretty sucky in the education of the general populace. this isn't a problem economically due to the state of industrialization in germany.

Because in a capitalist economy the substitution of labour by machines does NOT benefit the general populace as it would in any sensible economic system. Due to the tie of ones right to exist to ones parttaking in maximation of profit, that is inherent to capitalist ideology, it means social exclusion and poverty to those depending on selling there labour to survive.

More machines > Less Jobs> Less wealth to the masses
because this system is fucktarded.

This is why germany can allow it self to provide good education only to a few and employ a "fuck the rest" attitude towards it broader populace.

I would really like to live in a society in which we can use the benefits of industrialization, but to do that we need to abolish capitalism.

>>3648620
Read about the NEPmen.

but there's really no need to abolish capitalism, since it's not a form of government: it's an economic strategy that any one in the western world, or any group of people, is free to opt out of at any time, and as the guy discussing the Amish pointed out, many have.

There's no point in revolution when you can literally use the master's tools to dismantle the masters house if you want to. there's absolutely no reason why a capitalist society, and a communistic society can't flourish in the same country. they often have. It's the coercion that gets people's goat: the idea that people want to outlaw their way of life, when it's not even that incompatible with the one they choose to live.

remember: communism is a situation where a group of people pool their means of production and capital and share the labor and benefits. capitalism is a system where people may or may not pool their capital and means of production in order to increase their capital and improve their quality of life through trade with others.

all the badthings that happen at the top level can be avoided at the grassroots level, and thats where people who like one system or another should concentrate.

>>3648686
>not collecting welfare for the purpose of being a gently coaxing pioneer towards a society where non-working is accepted for the greater good of all

Feels like a uppity black woman on an alabama bus.

>>3648700
>There's no point in revolution when you can literally use the master's tools to dismantle the masters house if you want to.
Because the use of money and access to investing are there for the proles. Oh wait...

>>3648645
unless the guy share the profits with their employees.

There are bosses that actually do this!

>>3646628
>being this homeschooled
read a book, idiot

>>3648700
le grassroots brain surgery face.bmp

>>3647444
I have a theory it is a way of overcompensating for some perceived injustices (blacks having rights being an example of such great injustice).

>tfw stirnerist absolute monarchist

>>3648725
but they are available! pool your income and invest with the rest! it's been done by lots of groups. it works!

>>3648725
>>3648760
Even if the proles dont want to invest, just by understanding how the system works would make a big change. The only hope i have is taht capitalism break from inside.

>>3648645

Ok yes they are. But what I alluded to was that I try to provide working conditions not as bad as they could be. And they need something to live of as this is still capitalism. But of course I still profit from their labour.

But if people collectively pull their heads out of their asses, and in turn liberate me from having to provide for my needs through my bookshop, I'll be more than happy to collectivize it.

>>3648731
If they're dependant on the income stemming from their employment they are wage slaves. Even if they share in the profit, since they wouldn't be sharing in the profit without being employed there. They're dependant on their employer's allowance. Le slavery.

>>3648781
>not living in a social liberal lumputopia where the need for work just becomes gradually less and less and unemployment rates increase while easily being supported by the system
>not patiently waiting until everyone has a middle class (according to current standards) income by default as a human right and being an actual working just comes with perks and status

>>3648870
nice dreams bro.. extremely unreal, but nice.

>>3648963
What do you think is gonna happen?

So far it's working out excellently for me though. I don't work, no one expects me to work, I have my little joys and pleasures and life is altogether splendid.

>>3648963
>saying something is unreal

>>3649029
you know, I'm the capitalism defending consrvative republican from above, and I agree with you. I think that's exactly whats going to happen. I think the people who enjoy working and earning and gaining are going to end up paying off every body else to just leave us alone. It's not a bad deal on either side.

>>3649029
good for you.

I dont know what is going to happen, maybe we make robots that work instead of us, and we enjoy not working for a while, but then they reveal and kill us all.

>>3649081
Agreements like this will lead us to Eden, friend.