/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1007234]

What do you guys think of capitalism?

[Anonymous No.1007238]

>>1007234
I think it's not related to literature.

[Anonymous No.1007241]

Seems like you already have a clear stance on capitalism.

oh and btw, I'm leftist as fuck, so don't try to call me butthurt. I don't want you ruining this board, so reported.

[Anonymous No.1007244]

this idea that political discourse or imagination has to revolve around grand systems, as though people have teh abillity to change things drastically by matter of will alone, is bad.

that said, a lot of things need to be improved in "capitalism." studying both capitalism and socialism and libertarianism and anarchism will tell you why, and maybe how.

[Stagolee !0Pey/QLK3E No.1007255]

Liberals: show me how socialism works.

You can't.

[Stagolee !0Pey/QLK3E No.1007258]

Or in a good way, I mean.

[stag's mom No.1007263]

stag, go take out the trash or i'm cutting off your welfare payments,

l0ve
mom

[Anonymous No.1007266]

I think it encourages trampling on your fellow man and results in an empty, materialistic consumer culture that makes me feel sick to my stomach.

[Anonymous No.1007272]

>>1007266

What would you prefer?

[Anonymous No.1007275]

well. i think it's a shit system and inherently oppressive.
should it be dismantled? meh. some people truly enjoy living in/under it. but not i, and not many others.

it shouldn't be the sole choice in our society.

[Anonymous No.1007285]

>>1007275
It's hard to make everyone happy, but it's your fault for not making the most of it.

I think the people ITT who hate capitalism are broke college students/dropouts who can't afford anything and may perhaps even be a bit jealous

[Anonymous No.1007289]

It's the best system of commerce.

[Anonymous No.1007296]

it's just what this shit world deserves. i'm anticapitalism but i say we don't need no water let the motherfucker burn.

[Anonymous No.1007298]

>>1007275
>inherently oppressive

I would ask you to make some legitimate points, but I don't think you even know what capitalism is.

[Anonymous No.1007302]

>>1007285
way to pull out the righty trite-card. that's not even the foundation of a discourse. you're just sightly, somewhat tactfully calling me lazy.

see, i work hard and thrive well under a capitalist system. does that mean i want to see it continued into further generations? fuck no. mankind can, and deserves better. its anti-progressives such as yourselves that will continue t beat a flawed system into the ground until we all have some sort of money grubbing dystopia.

"and yes, I recognize the irony that the very system I oppose affords me the luxury of biting the hand that feeds. But that's exactly why privileged fucks like me should feel obliged to whine and kick and scream, until everyone has everything they need."

[Anonymous No.1007307]

just as consciousness is a simulated illusion, the idea that there are Systems of social life is largely an illusion as well.

there is the social reality, then there are improvements the given political and institutional resources can make. but you must, must, constantly seek improvement.

thinking like this >>1007272 is precisely the tragedy of grand system thinking. "if we cannot change everything, tehre is no point in changing anything."

[Anonymous No.1007311]

>>1007298
Too stupid a post to bother with an appropriate response.
The entire backbone of capitalism relies on exploitation. It requires it to thrive.

But if you think I'm getting into a political debate on 4chan, you fucked in the head, son.

[Anonymous No.1007319]

>>1007311
>The entire backbone of capitalism relies on exploitation. It requires it to thrive.

So you think profit is exploitation and workers have a right to the profits?

[Anonymous No.1007320]

COMMERCE is inherently oppressive, don't lay that shit at my nigga the Invisible PIMPHAND.

[Anonymous No.1007328]

>>1007311
Calling something exploitative or oppressive is not debate. It's just using emotional words.

[Anonymous No.1007331]

>>1007319
Not the anon you're replying to, but
>and workers have a right to the profits?
Definitely.

[Anonymous No.1007332]

>>1007319
>every market transaction occurs in my fair and open abstraction!

in competitive situations, yes, firms make 0 economic profit and you get workers capturing their marginal product in wage.

however, in the real world not all situations are like the ideal model. this is especially true when governments are used to create leverage against labor.

[Anonymous No.1007333]

>>1007272

Ideally? Socialist anarchism.

I'll settle for democratic socialism, though.

[Anonymous No.1007334]

>>1007328
it is both. your job is to understand the normative argument, even if it is not well stated. obviously you are trying to make a normative argument as well. make a little effort.

[Anonymous No.1007335]

Workers get their profits, in bonuses and pay raises.

[Anonymous No.1007336]

>>1007333
>>1007333
>I'll settle for democratic socialism, though.

Protip: No, actually you won't.

[Anonymous No.1007337]

everything in moderation

impoverishing your consumer base is self-defeating

ie. hawks that hunt so well eventually run into shortages

nothing lasts forever

socialism in moderation (works in N europe, more or less)

[Anonymous No.1007338]

>>1007311
I already know the dumb shit you are going to spew anyway. You are going to say that profit is exploitative, which it isn't. THEN you are going to spout the labor theory of value even though value is subjective. Then you might say how the workers are entitled to a companies profits, but not the loses, because you will ignore the entire concept of loses.

[Anonymous No.1007342]

>>1007331
What about the loses?

[Anonymous No.1007343]

>>1007336

Why do you say that?

[Anonymous No.1007348]

>>1007342
Obviously he meant to say "loosers" faggot.

[Anonymous No.1007349]

>>1007319
profit is not exploitation, profit is the way of commerce.

exploitation is using the idea of some kind of economic darwinism to keep workers poor to sustain maximum profits.

>>1007328
then simply read on living conditions in globalized communities overseas or local living conditions of the lower class.

[Anonymous No.1007351]

>>1007343
You're going to settle for whatever is given to you. It's never going to be democratic socialism.

[Anonymous No.1007356]

>>1007338
profits and losses, we'll take both.
it comes with the territory of having an economy.

[Anonymous No.1007365]

>>1007351
The zapatistas would like to have a word with you.
Something about reappropriation of workplace and community via struggle. i dunno.

[Anonymous No.1007374]

>>1007349
>exploitation is using the idea of some kind of economic darwinism to keep workers poor to sustain maximum profits.

They can chose not to work for that person. Since they chose to stay, they obviously value the pay enough to put up with those conditions. Otherwise they would seek employment elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.1007379]

A capitalist system is the only just system possible, normatively and empirically. Anyone who says otherwise knows nothing about economics, ethics or politics, beyond that which he reads in Wiki summaries and blogposts; nor has he applied any level of critical thinking to Marxism itself.
This, from a person who very much considers himself of the Left.

[Anonymous No.1007384]

>>1007351

Why not? It's becoming a less and less 'extreme' position. Especially in Europe.

If you're talking about America, I agree. The word 'socialist' is far too stigmatized for it to ever come to real power.

[Anonymous No.1007386]

>>1007356
You will take the loses when the company loses millions? Yeah right, you will put all that on the capitalists and investors. But when times are good you will come looking for your share of the profits.

[Anonymous No.1007389]

american capitalism puts old people in nursing homes and children in daycare because each has no material value

capitalism alone is insufficient

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007393]

>>1007342
depends on how you understand what is being lost.

start a factory with 100m initial investment. this 100m is a bunch of productive resources, and also "private investment."

in either socialism or capitalism, investments will fail and social resources will be lost.

the losses are only the capitalist's sole lot if you've granted him the property rights to investment capital in the first place. so this kind of "i deservez profits because i take the risks!" argument is only valid if you grant full legitimacy to private hoards of wealth. it may not look problematic when you imagine every capitalist as a horace alger character, but when you realize the concentration of wealth in the real world, it seems a weak argument.

[Anonymous No.1007394]

>>1007386

>We'll take the losses too
>No you won't

Productive discussion ITT.

[Anonymous No.1007395]

>wearing shoes = being a slave to capitalism

[FAGGATRON_3000 !U0FKfqmRjs No.1007396]

Sure is /new/ in here.

This thread is awful, even by /new/ standards.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
98% of "Americans" won't stand up for God.
Be one of the 2% that will, copy this in your signature.

LIE-BRILS: If YOU don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand IN FRONT of them.
Socialism KILLS, AMERICA saves; GOD bless RONALD REAGAN

i'm a hArDcOrE (xXx†hXc†xXx) Christian fiRsT, AnD i b3lEve iN ev0luTion Wh3n mY MuDkIp rEaChEs Lv 18.

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007399]

>>1007374
i'm sure the labor market is perfectly competitive just because you imagine it so. econ101 kids with no real world experience spotted.

[Anonymous No.1007401]

Capitalism isn't inherently oppressive. Just like any economic, religious, or political ideology it has the capacity to itself be taken advantage of or misinterpreted and thus become oppressive.

Socialism is like the compromise between Capitalism and Communism that protects the lower working class from being exploited while allowing for upward mobility within socio-economic class.

The best form of economic policy, at least in my opinion, is one in which ingenuity and ambition is rewarded with upward mobility through social-economic class while also protecting middle and lower class workers from being exploited by those with more power though regulating things like enforcing comfortable and safe work conditions and a minimum wage. The consumer should also be protected from exploitation.

This is bad of course, when a company outsources labor to third world countries in order to exploit those people.

[Anonymous No.1007402]

>>1007374
"value" and "require to survive" are vast differences.

one of the few choices you'd have for equality in the workplace is a co-op, which most people with access to start-up capital aren't looking to create.

a syndicate is a powerful catalyst for worker equality, but to achieve a syndicate usually requires taking the workplace by force which the state, in camaraderie with the capitalist system, will never allow.

[Anonymous No.1007407]

You guys act as though a man is ontologically obligated to do charity; that a person has no claim to his property; and ultimately, a man must cede sovereignty to the collective. Cool.

inb4 'gtfo objectivist,' because A) there is nothing with charity, but B) there is certainly something VERY wrong with coercing one into doing good.

All critiques of capitalism are predicated on the premise that a person has no stake to controlling his life and his property, and must be his brother's keeper. In other words, that a man must be a SLAVE to another.

[Anonymous No.1007410]

on capitalism:

"I'm drawing the metaphor of the early attempts to fly. The man going off the end of a very high cliff in his airplane with the wings flapping, and the guy is flapping the wings and the air is in his face, and this poor fool thinks he is flying, but in fact he's in free fall and he just doesn't know it yet because the ground is so far away. But of course the craft is doomed to crash. That's the way our civilisation is. The very high cliff represent the virtually unlimited resources we seemed to have when we began this journey. The craft isn't flying because it's not built according the the laws of aerodynamics and is subject to the law of gravity. Our civilisation is not flying because it's not built according to the laws of aerodynamics for civilisations that would fly. And of course the ground is still a long way away, but some people have seen that ground rushing up sooner than the rest of us have. The visionaries have seen it and have told us it's coming."

tl;dr: man, at each stage in history, has assumed he was living the only viable way. he has always been wrong.

[Anonymous No.1007412]

>>1007393
He doesn't simply deserve the profit because he made the investment. Workers have a contract. If they are simply contracted to do a service or job for the capitalist, why should they be entitled to anything other than what is in the contract?

[Anonymous No.1007415]

>>1007407

no, but no man is an island

critiques of capitalism amount to attacks on excessive individualism and denial of the fact that we are, after all, social creatures (hint, social + ism)

[Anonymous No.1007419]

>>1007407

Property is theft.

[Anonymous No.1007424]

>>1007410

Wow, way to say nothing.

People have different needs in social structure at different times. Capitalism is the wave of the future, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.1007432]

>>1007402
>"value" and "require to survive" are vast differences.

Don't mean to sound cold, but they actually aren't at all. Not using this as some kind of argument for capitalism though.

[Anonymous No.1007435]

>>1007407
sure is a lot of derp in that post.
you proved yourself that capitalism is an anti-humanitarian system. now, you can keep that. that is fine.

but when it comes between people who want solidarity with their fellow man and you turning a buck and being a tunnel visioned egoist, guess who has become the slave to whom?

your philosophy will be the death of your kind.

[Anonymous No.1007436]

>>1007419

Proudhon was wrong.

>>1007415
By saying that said 'excessive individualism' is wrong, you thus deny the idea that man has a RIGHT to self-determination. As for 'social creature': there is nothing wrong with helping one another; there is, again, something wrong with using force to make that happen.

[Anonymous No.1007442]

>>1007432
i value my book collection. i value my telecaster. i value a good conversation.

i do not require them to survive in this world the way i do a steady paycheck.

[Anonymous No.1007443]

>>1007435

Um: no. I reserve the right to be as selfish or as selfless as I wish. You would have it that we are FORCED to abide by the latter. You are the slave, prole.

[Anonymous No.1007447]

>>1007419
Claiming ownership of your own body or labor is theft. Just pointing out anyone can have retarded standards for theft and systems of property. Systems of property merely come down to preferences.

[Anonymous No.1007454]

>>1007424
capitalism was the "wave of the future" when the industrial age hit. at this stage over a century later, its a flawed, self destroying economic timebomb.

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007455]

>>1007412
that's what i'm saying. the same investment decision can happen in both socialism and capitalism. this "capitalist deserves profits because of risks" guy is assuming that the capitalist's investment capital is legitimately owned. this is a veiled political argument.

now, the "real" argument, if there is any, is that private investers are allowed to fail and die off, so there is a way of accounting for losses, that it is painful. so private investment tends to be more intelligent.

however, this is an instrumental argument, and not the kind of durrcproperty crap that this guy was presenting.

[Anonymous No.1007459]

>>1007435

Funny, capitalism prevailed over corrupt socialist states and didn't kill tens of millions of people for the sake of social engineering.

The funny thing is that your argument is just as substantial as the arguments religious fundies use against gay marriage and evolution. "HURR VALUES HURR MORALITY HURR SOCIETY WILL DEGRADE"

[Anonymous No.1007467]

Literature

[Anonymous No.1007469]

>>1007443
bahaha. with what force? social stigma?
i'm not claiming anyone cant be a self-centered asshole, bent towards his own gain. it's cool, whatever.

i'm asserting that when that mindset keeps others downtrodden economically, leaving them codependent on your meager wages to survive and without a feasible alternative (that people like you perpetuate, in cahoots with state regulation), it is YOU who has become the master over the slave.

[Anonymous No.1007470]

>>1007436

think of force as a social organism regulating itself

it is just as forced as the individual forcing himself to profit as others' expense

as far as RIGHT i don't see it written in stone anywhere

you can do what you can get away with

if you fuck over the majority of the human race, consequences will never be the same; expect them

[Anonymous No.1007472]

>>1007454

It still is, even after the cold war. Emerging economies are booming and living standards continue to rise. Even social democracies thrive because they provide a good environment for business.

As far as reality is concerned, capitalism is winning and there is no end in sight.

[Anonymous No.1007484]

>>1007442
Yes, you value those things. You may also value your life or mother. Since you value life you will also value food, shelter and water. They are all things you value. How much you value each of these things is subjective. If this sounds absurdly obvious, it is. I don't see how else to reply to:

>"value" and "require to survive" are vast differences.

Value encompass both the bookcase and those things you require to survive, if you value them that is.

[Anonymous No.1007488]

I'm just going to leave this here.

Capitalists: keep marginalizing the poor and putting profits over people.
Socialists: keep asserting big government and cut-n-paste livability is the shit.

Because i will be dead in 60 years and at this point, I really, really don't give a fuck about the well being and continued existence of the human species any longer.

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007492]

>>1007447
self ownership is only one way of defending individual freedom. it is a pretty flawed and naive conception of the political problem. i suggest some readings in contemporary political theory.

as for the egotist stuff, it's a rather complicated and interesting situation. everyone respectable feels the need to rebuff it, but not always in the best or most to the point way. if you have some genuine interest in this class of problems, you can study upon it more. but if you are just attached to it as a way of justifying your personal attitudes on certain things, then you should understand that you are in the margins.

[Anonymous No.1007506]

>>1007472
Capitalism crashed a couple years ago. What you're seeing is state capitalism with a healthy dose of oversight. I don't see any actual free markets anywhere. inb4 Somalia

[Anonymous No.1007508]

If you have a kidney, and I have a kidney, and you have a kidney disease: your governing body reaches across the collective and starts to steal my kidney.

That is the ideological premise behind socialism.

By your arguments, /lit/, my refusal to donate a kidney is tantamount to profiting off your expense.

[Anonymous No.1007517]

>>1007492
>self ownership is only way of defending individual freedom.

Fixed.

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007518]

>>1007508
pretty sure you are fighting a tough strawman here. no need to be so scared of him, as he's only made of straws.

[Anonymous No.1007520]

>>1007508

this is bullshit

i don't see socialists kidney farming

i see kidney farming on the capitalist black market

you lose

[Anonymous No.1007526]

>>1007506
>Capitalism crashed a couple years ago.

laughinggirls.jpeg

[Anonymous No.1007528]

Capitalism may be the winner, but it doesn't exactly mean it is the most prudent path. The entire basis of capitalism is the pretense that the earth has a near endless set of resources to match human greed. The availability of these supplies is what defines our economies. The only problem is, the earth has a very finite amount of resources to offer. The argument then goes to technology being what will preserve us from destruction once we have consumed all resources. This is a wild gamble at best.
tldr; Capitalism faces the future by relying on bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1007533]

>>1007520
>>1007518

>HOW DO I ANALOGY?

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007534]

>>1007517
and libertarians are really the mainstream in political philosophy!

no, it's actually not. ownership is a peculiar political institution, and it's only one way of conceiving social relations.

[Anonymous No.1007536]

>>1007526
Oh, you're just trolling. I see.

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007540]

>>1007533
by making a terribly bad one and caricaturing the irs as organ collection, evidently

[Anonymous No.1007542]

>>1007506

No it didn't. Capitalism still did better than whatever shit that choked itself out at the end of the cold war.

No rational human being will argue for pure capitalism or socialism, but a system with a large dose of the former definitely does better than a system biased towards the latter.

[Anonymous No.1007543]

>>1007518

Redistributive wealth takes from one to give to another, under the claim that, "Hey, you can't have that while I don't!" Not a straw man.

>>1007520

The black market is not capitalism. Unregulated commerce is not capitalism. Forcibly taking from others without their consent is not capitalism. Taking from the purses of individuals to serve the collective--that's theft.

Remember kids: Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor. He stole tax money back from the gov't.

[Anonymous No.1007548]

>>1007536
What else is someone to say to an idiot who makes such retarded claims? In what particular even or moment did capitalism come to an end? It's the dumbest post ever made.

[Anonymous No.1007549]

>>1007533

money is not a naturally limited resource, like kidneys

FFS

everybody has 2 kidneys

some people have 1,000,000,000$

[Anonymous No.1007551]

>>1007488

Careful not to associate socialism with communism. Socialism doesn't necessarily need big government. See: Anarcho-socialism.

[Anonymous No.1007558]

>>1007548
when it became corporatism, you dolt.

[Anonymous No.1007560]

>>1007551
no worries, i am well versed in the tenets of anarcho-syndicalism.

it was just addressing the Socialism presented by others in this thread.

[Anonymous No.1007561]

>>1007540

If it's such a straw man to you, pray tell: how are you to differentiate between that which I grew, through my own powers and also that of my heredity/environment, and that which I own, through my own powers and also that of my heredity/environment? Property is property is property.

[Anonymous No.1007562]

[spoilers]ayn rand[/spoilers]

[Anonymous No.1007563]

>>1007558
And that was a few years ago? I don't think so..

[Anonymous No.1007571]

I think capitalism, in the very broad sense that we think of it today, can work well, but it depends on every citizen to make sure that all members of their community are well looked after. Otherwise, a few rich people control the wealth and produce of an entire community, which is not the way it should be.

[Anonymous No.1007572]

>>1007548
I didn't say anything about it ending. It just fucked up badly and now is going to have to have more oversight. No free markets in sight.

[Anonymous No.1007574]

>>1007551
See: anarcho-communism

Anyway, I think they both need big government. Sure, it might say it doesn't on paper..

[Anonymous No.1007575]

>>1007528

That's not true. Capitalism's most redeeming property is its ability to ration. People will cut down on consumption and look for greener pastures when supplies start to wane.

Last time I checked, capitalism didn't cause the Aral Sea to virtually disappear, government policies did.

[Anonymous No.1007578]

Why do we confine ourselves to socialism and capitalism? Socialism's problem in the eyes of most is that paying everyone the same leads to a lack of incentive. Capitalisms has numerous problems. First of all economies of scale necessitate that most all products be sold to the lowest common denominator. It is naive and shallow to think that capitalism is a system for "individuality". How many "individual" television shows are created each year? Or movies? To those that pretend to appreciate art, this should be important. But that matters little to the kids who's parents can't find work. The labor market WILL get worse because companies primary goal is to reduce risk and return value to their shareholders. As a result companies sacrifice innovation in products for predictability and innovation in capital investments. This means that jobs are being automated faster than things are being created by innovation. The fundamental problem with the US labor market is not overspending, or lending, or banks being irresponsible. The fundamental problem is that companies don't need workers. If they needed workers they would be competing to hire anybody they can. Both systems have been broken, but only one was allowed to reach its natural conclusion, and that is capitalism. We need a third way. If anyone cares (doubtful), I will provide my alternative. But lets just say I hate capitalism with a fiery passion. Also there are way too many econ 101 fags here. Read something besides adam smith before talking about economics. Finance/MIS major here.

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007581]

>>1007543
you are still operating from a common-law, natural property rights framed political philosophy. it's kind of like a guy who's been living under the system of serfdom not understanding the problem with calling people second class.

anyway, i got you cute libertarians some education material.

http://www.mediafire.com/?eechlj9hgdxl1cd

[Anonymous No.1007597]

>>1007581

Protip: Common law is the basis of the American legal system. If you don't like it, you'll literally have to go to another country.

[Anonymous No.1007598]

>>1007581
>you are still operating from a common-law, natural property rights framed political philosophy.

It's his preferred system of property rights. You have yours he has his.

[Anonymous No.1007602]

>>1007578
>Read something besides adam smith before talking about economics.

They should try reading Adam Smith more closely in the first place, before talking about economics.

[Anonymous No.1007605]

>>1007581

You didn't prove that it's a straw man. You only showed that the metaphor works and that you're okay with it.

Fuck politics; let's talk ideologies. You come from a school of thought that says, "Man is obligated to help man." I come from a school of thought that says, "No man has the right to dictate what another ought to do." Positive liberty v. negative liberty.

Also, I'm no libertarian, nor a conservative.

[Anonymous No.1007612]

>>1007578
interested in hearing your alternative

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007613]

>>1007597
protip: distinguish between theory and political realities.
and natural law guys don't even believe in it in ignorance of other systems or (purportedly anyway!) act like it's the only thing in existence


this ignorance of the contingency of your own hallowed "axioms" is the problem with you internet libertarians.

[Anonymous No.1007616]

>>1007605

man helping man originates in family

society also originates in family

qed motherfucker

[Anonymous No.1007620]

Well well well.

What's going on here?

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007621]

>>1007605
i didn't bother addressing your "arguments," because you'd have to be pretty retarded to not realize the distance between forced organ collection and taxes.

[Anonymous No.1007627]

>>1007613
>problem with you internet libertarians.

>Complains about making straw men.
>makes straw men.

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007630]

>>1007575
>confusing market mechanics and basic economic rationing with capitalism
>my face

as i've said before>>1007307
>>1007244

seems like you guys need to get off debating hurrcapitalismvssocialism

the ussr style command economy is terribad, so is the attitude that markets are perfect and everything is oh so problem free.

[Anonymous No.1007634]

>>1007613

No one here said that. Most capitalism supporters here simply think that an ownership system based on common law is the most favorable system.

You're just dumping documents and calling names while being a tripfaggot. Stop it.

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007635]

>>1007627
u mad?

[Anonymous No.1007638]

>>1007528
This man speaks the truth. The way we are going right now we are going to suck every drop of life out of this planet and then we are going to latch onto another one and do the same thing, that is, if we don't destroy ourselves in the process of destroying the Earth.

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007643]

>>1007634
nope. i'm the first one to raise the idea that your ideas of what property should be is historically contingent. you've not exactly tried to define or justify common law property, you just declared that they are right and act like it's an argument everyone should accept.

[Anonymous No.1007648]

>>1007635
How can I be mad while posting a "derp" picture? Just look at it, doesn't it bring a smile to your face? His eyes are so silly.

[Anonymous No.1007653]

>>1007630

>Implying that we don't favor capitalism because it is the best way for market functions to work themselves out.

You're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing and putting works in other people's mouths.

see:

>No rational human being will argue for pure capitalism or socialism, but a system with a large dose of the former definitely does better than a system biased towards the latter.

[Anonymous No.1007654]

>>1007612
Well the alternative is a bad word. It is a bad word because it failed. I will not mention that bad word and instead just give out the theory. The idea is to create a system based on merit as opposed to profit. We reward innovation and the betterment of mankind as opposed to pure profit and greed. Instead of letting the market decide who is worth the most, we decide by rewarding those that do the most. We will pay doctors, lawyers (who will have a drastically reduced roll), and scientists more. People will be given to a chance to excel at what they want to do, and if they cant they will be placed somewhere where they can do good in another way. We must never forget that not all people are equal. And we must never forget that those that arent as good as the rest have a place in society to do something constructive. They are to be valued as productive members of society. Goals will be production, safety, innovation, and value to humanity. It is the extreme of the center. Without all the stupid and needless horrors associated with the word.

[Anonymous No.1007656]

We should close off and drain the Mediterranean for farm land.

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007661]

>>1007648
idk, seems pretty mad to me.

anywayyyys, i don't mean ill. libertarian kiddies are good natured, just read more and outside of your ideological domain. please.

[Anonymous No.1007663]

>>1007643

And plenty of people raised up good points against and in defense of capitalism while you failed to contribute.

[Anonymous No.1007664]

>>1007656
The sea floor is literally covered in salt, will that be a problem?

[Anonymous No.1007675]

Not once has it been mentioned in this thread that capitalism was born vaginally and socialism was hatched from an egg.

I prefer live birth economies because of the need for boobs.

This doesn't negate the fact that there are others who like to roost upon an economy before it hatches.

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007682]

>>1007663
i'm sorry for your inability to read.

[Anonymous No.1007684]

>>1007638
If we choose to do so it is our right a the only sentient beings to evolve on this planet. If we choose to destory this planet so be it. If we choose to save it so be it. I am all for preservation of natural habitats but not for some innate reason we should so, but because I find it interesting. We have the right to shape this world into what ever vision we as species choose it to be.

As for the actual topic of this, I believe moderated capitalism to be the easiest way to distribute resources while still respecting the natural rights of man. Pure capitalism fails because of how it distributes resources while extreme socialism/communism dose not respect the natural rights of man

[Anonymous No.1007687]

>>1007682

The same goes to you.

[Anonymous No.1007692]

>>1007684

Man has no natural rights.

[Anonymous No.1007696]

judging by it's record, it's probably better to work with capitalism and try to improve its impact than a departure for it

seriously, I havent seen a lot of good alternatives in this thread. you can't just replace a system with almost nothing

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007697]

>>1007653
noooooo. you know what determines which is better? the precise conditions in particular markets. you are treating this as some kind of ideological war, like, you want to have an answer that's either "capitalism is better" or "socialism is better!" i'm sorry, but the real answer is that it depends.

[Anonymous No.1007700]

>>1007684
hahaha, yeah sure, 'cause we're like the most important, right?

The idea that somehow humanity can take control of nature and chain it to man's will while going at the pace we are moving is utterly ludicrous.

[Anonymous No.1007701]

>>1007664

Salting the earth is what the Romans did to help their good allies Carthage thrive.

[Anonymous No.1007705]

>>1007696

>you can't just replace a system with almost nothing

We can replace it with exactly nothing.

[Anonymous No.1007709]

>>1007700
No we have that right because we are conscious beings, able to shape our world to will because we choose to do so on whim, not because biology told us to do.
Also if we end up destroying the world because of choices so be it. Because it is our right to destroy it and ourselves.

[Anonymous No.1007714]

But isn't capitalism nothing? I mean, when there is no system or institution in place, isn't the result naturally capitalism?

Or am I confusing capitalism with the free market...

[Anonymous No.1007715]

>>1007705

Fuck yeah, anarcho-sydicalism.

[Anonymous No.1007718]

>>1007709
you make me kind of sick, honestly, you do.

[Anonymous No.1007719]

>>1007697

And what I, and a lot of other people, am saying is that capitalism works better for today's world.

which was posted before several times

[dUnK !!mcRsdBM7ATI No.1007720]

I think through it's own processes it will create the preconditions necessary for it's replacement.

[Anonymous No.1007721]

>>1007701
That's not how the salt got there at all! In any case, the real question that needs to be answered in this thread isn't how the salt got there, it came via natural processes just so you know, but what is the best method for moving the salt and if we even need to move the salt.

[Anonymous No.1007724]

>>1007705
yeah 'cause that'd work out reeeeaaaal smooooth like

[Anonymous No.1007726]

>>1007709

Suicide is a right. Taking everyone else with you is not.

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007728]

>>1007714
capitalism is a term coined by marx to describe the economic situation of his day. a lot of the features thought to identify capitalism are either dated or rendered in peculiar marxist terms. marx also had this rather peculiar idea of grand political systems and stages of history that are not in good standing today.

basically, capitalism vs socialism arguments are outdated and mostly serve as bickering material for people not involved in actual policy study.

[Anonymous No.1007730]

anarcho-syndicalism is the only sensible alternative for me.

[Anonymous No.1007731]

>>1007724

If implemented rationally, yes.

Also, anarchism =\= chaos.

[Anonymous No.1007734]

>>1007724

All revolutions are chaotic, but sometimes it's worth it.

[Anonymous No.1007735]

don't trust black and red in combination

black widow
'
or , if you like, see whwat michelle obama wore on election night

inb4 motherfucker of god

[Anonymous No.1007736]

>>1007724
worked just fine before the fascists stepped in.
people and communities can sustain on their own. especially without despots asserting unjust power over them.

[Anonymous No.1007737]

>>1007656

A drained Mediterranean Sea is basically a salt flat.

Good luck farming there.

[dUnK !!mcRsdBM7ATI No.1007739]

>>1007728
Like a sociological perspective that completely dominates sociology to this day?

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007741]

>>1007719
again, what works better is...what works better. and it most probably will have elements taht you would call "socialism" in it. the standard here is what will work better, not what or how much capitalism there is. ideology with this kind of ill defined and somewhat naive grand systems is not the proper way of relating to politics.

there are only 2 major rules here:
1. help people
2. be realistic

[Anonymous No.1007742]

>>1007734
You just get the same shit different asshole
Batista and Castro will be sucking the same devils balls in hell

[Anonymous No.1007746]

Sociopathism leads to problems

[Anonymous No.1007747]

wut

[Anonymous No.1007749]

>>1007747

black widow don't you fucking get it?

[Anonymous No.1007752]

>>1007742

Castro actually wasn't that bad of a leader. Especially when you compare Cuba with its capitalist neighbor Haiti.

[Anonymous No.1007754]

>>1007742
>implying Stateist-Socialists have anything to do with Anarcho-Syndicalists.

[Anonymous No.1007756]

I don't give a fuck about people I've never met.

I expect to keep what I earn.

I am a capitalist.

[Anonymous No.1007759]

>>1007752
>Castro actually wasn't that bad of a leader.
>whatthefuckamireading.jpg
Have you ever met someone from Cuba or with relatives in Cuba?
Because they would fucking beat you if they heard you say that.

[Anonymous No.1007761]

>>1007746

Consumption of Faygo leads to diabeetus.

[research department !z0MWdctOjE No.1007765]

>part of your post isn't allowed to be posted

aff
>>1007739

http://pastebin.com/KFwePN8b

[Anonymous No.1007766]

>>1007747
The black widow theory is vindicated!

[Anonymous No.1007768]

Its threads like this that make people look for an easier way. They hear unoriginal ideas and then they zone out and learn nothing about anything. They begin to think everyone is out to get them and know nothing about the world. Then they step into the final step that into the abyss. Into the apocalyptic hell with a heat of a thousand suns. And you hear the words that make puppies scream and kittens bleed out their ears.


Sara Palin 2012

[Anonymous No.1007772]

>>1007759

The people who stayed in Cuba live better than most of the other people in the Caribbean.

Any former Cuban is some stupid fuck who couldn't live within an orderly system that takes care of all people.

[Anonymous No.1007776]

>>1007756
cool story, bro

[Anonymous No.1007784]

>>1007752

I guess that's why Cubans were fleeing his greatness on homebuilt rafts?

Besides, a well maintained capitalist system has much more potential than a socialist system any day.

[Anonymous No.1007785]

>>1007772
You are a fucking idiot. They may live better than other Caribbean nations but they still live under a dictator with nearly no rights.

[Anonymous No.1007790]

>>1007759

The people who left Cuba were the right wing nuts who couldn't handle cooperative society. Go to Miami if you think I'm just making shit up. They run the place.

[Anonymous No.1007791]

>>1007772
What this really comes down to is do you side with order or freedom or seek a middle ground. This statement may not have weight since I have never been in this state, but I would rather be cold and starving and still have my freedom of expression and to choose the destiny I choose for myself, then be well taken care of but not have the freedom of my own destiny.

[Anonymous No.1007794]

>>1007772
When people are literally fleeing your country on rubber rafts through shark infested waters, your county sucks.

[Anonymous No.1007795]

>>1007785

You can't eat rights, anon.

[Anonymous No.1007801]

>>1007790
>The people who left Cuba were the right wing nuts who couldn't handle cooperative society.

Same with the people who left Soviet Russia? You are fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.1007803]

>>1007795
"Live Free or Die"
starvation and death over repression any day

[Anonymous No.1007805]

Initialism is a much better system than Socialism or Capitalism

FTW!!!!

[Anonymous No.1007806]

>>1007795
And Cubans can't eat food because they have none of that either.

[Anonymous No.1007811]

>>1007801

Know who left Soviet Russia? Ayn Rand.

Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.1007813]

>>1007795
They can eat delicious cheeseburgers in America. Enjoy mindlessly accepting everything Micheal Moore tells you.

[Anonymous No.1007815]

>>1007790

Yes. And the polish solidarity were just greedy rabble-rousers.

I bet you would wet your pants the second the government implements any kind of censorship too.

[Anonymous No.1007822]

Michael Moore is a crypto-Nazi conducting the longest running false-flag operation in human history.

[Anonymous No.1007826]

>>1007806

>they're communist so they must be starving

Again, Cuba is a lot better off than Haiti, which has all those precious rights you're so keen on.

>>1007801

Ignoring the facts. Cuba is not Soviet Russia. A lot of people who left Cuba settled in Miami, Miami is very right-wing.

[Anonymous No.1007833]

>>1007826
>they're starving so they must be starving
FTFY
No Cuban would call Castro a good leader.

[Anonymous No.1007837]

>>1007833

Except for the ones that do.

[Anonymous No.1007839]

>>1007833

Except the poor in Cuba who fucking love him because they don't want to be Haiti.

[Anonymous No.1007842]

>>1007826

And capitalist America is better than all of them.

You're comparing that you consider one of the best socialist states with arguably one of the worst maintained capitalist systems. Sure is intellectually disingenuous here.

[Anonymous No.1007848]

>>1007801
>>1007794
>>1007790
>>1007785

Go to Cuba
Then go to Jamaica, Dominican Republic and Haiti

Don't go to the tourist areas, go to the cities and see how people live. Attempt to do anything remotely attempting business.

Cuba is a 1st world country with an oppressive government.
Haiti, DR and Jamaica are 2nd & 3rd world countries with oppressive bribes that stifle capitalism.

[Anonymous No.1007847]

>>1007839
Stop comparing it to Haiti. Fuck. Haiti doesn't have anything right now. Compare Cuba to a country with actual living standards.

[Anonymous No.1007861]

>>1007847

Haiti never had anything.

Compare Cuba to any country with the same demographics and you will see that Cuba is at the top of the list in terms of living standards, healthcare and many other measurements.

[Anonymous No.1007859]

>>1007813

that cheeseburger comes from a cow raised in a factory (no windows)

on steroids and eating corn instead of grass

liver fail

[Anonymous No.1007860]

>>1007848

>>Cuba
>>First world

No, not even close.

It's comparable to former soviet states and China, but nowhere close to western Europe, Canada, and the US.

[Anonymous No.1007871]

>>1007848
Hati actually isn't capitalism or socialism, because that would require either a free or managed economy. Hati dosen't have a economy, which is it's problem.

[Anonymous No.1007877]

>>1007861
At the cost of freedom.
"Live Free or Die"

[FAGGATRON_3000 !U0FKfqmRjs No.1007878]

>>1007861

I think that has more to do with the degenerate nature of Latin American culture and lifestyle. Cubans have the most European blood in them and speak European Spanish.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
98% of "Americans" won't stand up for God.
Be one of the 2% that will, copy this in your signature.

LIE-BRILS: If YOU don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand IN FRONT of them.
Socialism KILLS, AMERICA saves; GOD bless RONALD REAGAN

i'm a hArDcOrE (xXx†hXc†xXx) Christian fiRsT, AnD i b3lEve iN ev0luTion Wh3n mY MuDkIp rEaChEs Lv 18.

[Anonymous No.1007881]

>>1007871
by the fans of capitalism in this thread, it is certainly composed of free and private agents. should be a happy paradise, because the State is the only evil in paradise.

[Anonymous No.1007896]

>>1007878

So are they Nordic, Alpine or Mediterranean?

[FAGGATRON_3000 !U0FKfqmRjs No.1007915]

>>1007896


Um Hispanic? you mudskin?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
98% of "Americans" won't stand up for God.
Be one of the 2% that will, copy this in your signature.

LIE-BRILS: If YOU don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand IN FRONT of them.
Socialism KILLS, AMERICA saves; GOD bless RONALD REAGAN

i'm a hArDcOrE (xXx†hXc†xXx) Christian fiRsT, AnD i b3lEve iN ev0luTion Wh3n mY MuDkIp rEaChEs Lv 18.

[Anonymous No.1007914]

Capitalism gives up wonderful things

Pic related because without capitalism we.....
- wouldn't have the internet
- wouldn't have 4chan
- wouldn't have duckroll
- wouldn't be arguing about shit
- but we would be having nice quality family time with the 38 members of our extended family who also live in our candle lit hut.

[Anonymous No.1007925]

Capitalism gives us wonderful things

Pic related because without capitalism we.....
- wouldn't have the internet
- wouldn't have 4chan
- wouldn't have duckroll
- wouldn't be arguing about shit
- but we would be having nice quality family time with the 38 members of our extended family who also live in our candle lit hut.

[Anonymous No.1007931]

>>1007896

Dear /lit/,

Cubans are Mongoloid.

Sincerenly, /int/.

[Anonymous No.1007938]

Not the best system, but the only one that seems to be the most compatible with human nature.

[Anonymous No.1007940]

>>1007878
>Cubans have the most European blood

Cuba: 65.05% White (Spanish, others), 10.08% African (Igbo, other), 23.84% Mulatto and Mestizo

Uruguay: 88% White, 8% Mestizo, 4% Black.

Argentina: 86.4% White (mostly Italian and Spanish), 8% Mestizo, 4% Arab and East Asian, 1.6% Amerindian

wat?

[Anonymous No.1007946]

Argentina is basically Germany 2.0... in more ways than one.

lol ODESSA

[Anonymous No.1007951]

>>1007896

Ignore the faggatron (PROUD LIBERAL-blahblabla)

and btw, welcome to the internet

pic related: faggatron & his lifepartner

[FAGGATRON_3000 !U0FKfqmRjs No.1007954]

>>1007940

I meant compared to carribbean countries, nigger.


>>1007946

SEIG HEIL!
_____________________________________________________________________________________
98% of "Americans" won't stand up for God.
Be one of the 2% that will, copy this in your signature.

LIE-BRILS: If YOU don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand IN FRONT of them.
Socialism KILLS, AMERICA saves; GOD bless RONALD REAGAN

i'm a hArDcOrE (xXx†hXc†xXx) Christian fiRsT, AnD i b3lEve iN ev0luTion Wh3n mY MuDkIp rEaChEs Lv 18.

[fascist goldfish !Rrxa7zePwI No.1007960]

faggatron is too abrasive...but i can't hate him.

[FAGGATRON_3000 !U0FKfqmRjs No.1007961]

>>1007951

LOL, red hot levels of anal pain.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
98% of "Americans" won't stand up for God.
Be one of the 2% that will, copy this in your signature.

LIE-BRILS: If YOU don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand IN FRONT of them.
Socialism KILLS, AMERICA saves; GOD bless RONALD REAGAN

i'm a hArDcOrE (xXx†hXc†xXx) Christian fiRsT, AnD i b3lEve iN ev0luTion Wh3n mY MuDkIp rEaChEs Lv 18.

[Anonymous No.1007964]

>>1007961

You really should use a lubricant.

[Anonymous No.1007988]

>>1007960

Prison will make you abrasive, gay, racist and a lover of literature.

I just can't believe fools who take what he says serious.

[Anonymous No.1007996]

>>1007988
his sig thingy is spectacular

i'm a hArDcOrE (xXx†hXc†xXx) Christian fiRsT, AnD i b3lEve iN ev0luTion Wh3n mY MuDkIp rEaChEs Lv 18.

[FAGGATRON_3000 !U0FKfqmRjs No.1008001]

>>1007988

I am none of the above. But thanks for trying.
Keep up the butthurt, it's nice to see a chunk /new/ in lit.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
98% of "Americans" won't stand up for God.
Be one of the 2% that will, copy this in your signature.

LIE-BRILS: If YOU don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand IN FRONT of them.
Socialism KILLS, AMERICA saves; GOD bless RONALD REAGAN

i'm a hArDcOrE (xXx†hXc†xXx) Christian fiRsT, AnD i b3lEve iN ev0luTion Wh3n mY MuDkIp rEaChEs Lv 18.

[Anonymous No.1008022]

Capitalism is a cancer on the human race.

[Anonymous No.1008029]

>>1007996

I can't tell you how or why but it is impressive in some way or another... heheh

[GodlessCommunist !yb/j9iT6Jg No.1008054]

Capitalism is the key to destroying the West.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
98% of "Chinese" won't stand up for the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Be one of the 2% that will, copy this in your signature.

SHIT-OISTS: If YOU don't stand behind our continent, feel free to sink into the ocean.
Americanism KILLS, Confucius saves; May all the Bodhisattvas bless our Party on this day.

i'm a hArDcOrE Collectivist fiRsT, AnD i b3lEve iN inDividua!ity Wh3n mY NoVel getS PubLisHed.

[Anonymous No.1008102]

durrr

[Anonymous No.1008211]

Capitalism gave you this board, computer, and internet service you're using to argue this nonsense.

/thread

[Anonymous No.1008319]

I think it is the superior system in terms of allocating resources, economic calculation, markets etc

Most people itt should try reading some real economists like Hazlitt, Hayek, Menger, etc

[Anonymous No.1008456]

wat is this thread i dont bump

[Anonymous No.1008513]

>>1008211
no. human ingenuity and technological advancement gave us these things. capitalism is just a framework they happened to be built in.

derp.

[Anonymous No.1008535]

capitalism is evil and sad and turns people into greedy robots. sigh.

[Anonymous No.1008536]

>>1008211
>>1008513
I sometimes wonder which of these statements is true. I recognize that I'm not really qualified to declare one way or the other. Then again, it would seem that brainy econ people are divided too, so maybe my opinion is valid in any case.

Which is: It seems like it has helped us reach human potential more so than other systems, but now that is is firmly established, it only favors the already-wealthy or those greedy enough to fuck over anyone in their path to get rich.

In other words, its not who has the best idea, it's who spends the most on PR and lawyers and who is willing to exploit others' weaknesses that will succeed.

so, in it's present incarnation, it has become anti-intellectual. So I don't really like it, but the better alternatives have it as a component, though. Unless you just go full-on anarcho-socialist. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.1008559]

>>1008211

I'm not saying Capitalism hasn't benefited me a great deal. I'm saying we should look for a system which would allow for the rest of the world to enjoy the same standard of living as I do.

[Anonymous No.1008574]

capitalism? what is it? i don't situate myself againt ideological strawmen. how can you postulate about a subject without substance? do i hate police? greed? inequality? commercial spectacle/ soul numbing mediocrity? global starvation and the exploitation of one group of people by another? yes. but let's not talk about a fucking meaningless term....

[Anonymous No.1008586]

>>1008574

uh.. what capitalism is is dead clear mate. Private ownership of the means of production.

[Anonymous No.1008590]

Just another stepping stone on the path towards the actualization of human potential. As our capabilities develop, we will surely move on to another economic system, or perhaps we will move out of the economic paradigm completely into something we can only dream of at this moment. Time will tell.

[Anonymous No.1008591]

>>1008586
this is what i mean, nominalism and the manufactured poverty of language and by extension action...using the word ''capitalism'' is a monster in the closet, a bogey man, a diversion...''private ownership of the means of production'' doesn't begin to describe the problem...it creates non-thought

[Anonymous No.1008613]

In order to enter the scarcity-free utopia, we first have to curb our desire. We already have enough food for everyone, but there are fatties here and dying babies over there.

Communism will not lead to a change of character, but a change of character can lead to communism.

[Anonymous No.1008631]

if by capitalism you mean what Smith wrote about, that never really existed, or only existed for a short time before industrialization. the US economy now is closer tot he mercantilism that Smith was criticizing

[Anonymous No.1008643]

This thread:

>Implying Libertarianism is Conservatism
>Implying Conservatism is Neoconservatism
>Implying Social Democracy is Liberalism.
>Implying Liberalism is Socialism
>Implying Socialism is Communism
>Implying there has ever been a truly Communist system.

>Implying you can either have capitalism or socialism, and not a mix of the best aspects of both.

/lit/, I expect this shit from /new/, but I thought the brains of 4chan were better than this.

[Anonymous No.1008647]

the problem with arguing for a "mixed economy" is that it means just about whatever you want it to.

[Anonymous No.1008649]

>>1008647
Mixed economies are as diverse as the United States, Russia, Sweden, Canada, and India.

[Anonymous No.1008650]

>>1008647
Then let's come to a consensus on what we all want it to mean, and then give up in the process because it's too hard to get all these people on the same page ;_;