Post: #126

I don't like Bernie, his economic policies suck but also:

- Huge feminist
- Huge SJW in general

That anyone on this forum could support him mystifies me

Post: #127

(08-10-2015 02:12 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  As for "free", the reason your family was poor is because all the opportunities to do more with their life and improve themselves and grow was spent to pay for these "free" things. Nothing in life is free.

If this were a tenable position then the US with its less generous welfare state should have exceptionally high social mobility, but it doesn't; America has lower social mobility than any developed country except the UK. Economic opportunity is not correlated negatively with a strong welfare state, in fact is it entirely the opposite.

Post: #128

(08-09-2015 11:10 PM)Hyperion Wrote:  Bernie is just another thug who will steal from productive people and give it to government workers,the lazy. End of story. LOL at thinking a Jewish socialist from New York is going to be a savior. Some lessons haven't been learned from the Russian Revolution.

I wonder how come that both Sanders and Trump from New York? They are opposites of each other but both been raised in the same city. Interesting!

Post: #129

Easily. New York has a huge population and not everybody there thinks the same.

Post: #130

Delete

Post: #131

(08-10-2015 11:15 PM)Vanguard Wrote:  Capitalism on the other hand, fits naturally with Neomasculinty and the Manosphere. Capitalism embraces competition and empowers men to work hard and innovate. In the free market the best product always wins because the consumers have the power. The same way the guy with best game attracts the most girls. For instance, the girl (the consumer) controls which guy (the business) to be with depending on how good his game (the product) is.

I don't think it's nearly as black-and-white as you make it out to be. Capitalism, and here I'm assuming you're referring to the Western-style system in place today, has caused much harm to the various causes of the manosphere. America has been turned into a marketplace where the only thing people care about is money and bullshit things they don't need. This must be what you meant by "consumers having the power'. Yea, the power to choose between 30 different types of peanut butter or toothpaste. So what has been lost? Family, traditions, culture, language. true friendship etc. Are these not the very things we keep talking about on this forum? You can't blame everything on feminism. The endgoal of capitalism is the creation of mindless consumers and the elimination of traditional values.

By the way, I'm not rooting for socialism here. Personally I don't give a shit how this all pans out.

Post: #132

(08-10-2015 06:04 PM)chagataev Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 02:12 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  As for "free", the reason your family was poor is because all the opportunities to do more with their life and improve themselves and grow was spent to pay for these "free" things. Nothing in life is free.

If this were a tenable position then the US with its less generous welfare state should have exceptionally high social mobility, but it doesn't; America has lower social mobility than any developed country except the UK. Economic opportunity is not correlated negatively with a strong welfare state, in fact is it entirely the opposite.

We have opportunities in the US, as average people you don't have in European countries, even to this day. I have spoken to many Europeans who have moved here, and that was the reason they came here, the economic opportunities.

Now they don't exist for the average guy who goes to work 40 hours a week, then comes home to watch TV and play video games. You have to put in 80 hours a week, maybe more. But if you are willing to do this, you keep more of your money and you can afford to invest and grow your life.

As the welfare state has grown over the last 40 years, these opportunities are few and fewer. My grandparents, who were of the greatest generation, worked hard. Probably around 60 hours a week building up their lives. They started dirt poor in the great depression with not two nickels to rub together. When they passed away they owned a great deal of things and left their family very well off. This was much more possible and likely before the welfare state grew so that women could replace the need for a husband with the govt., aka all average men being forced at gun point to pay for these single mothers.

Post: #133

(08-10-2015 11:15 PM)Vanguard Wrote:  I'm with Samseau on this one. It perplexes me how men who embrace Neomasculinty and the Manosphere can support socialism.

Socialism by it's basic definition is the antithesis of everything the Manosphere stands for. It's the idea of taking from the strong to give to the weak. It's the acceptance of "victim hood". It's the idea that a man can't rely on himself to earn a basic livelihood; that the government must then step in and give him one for free.

Capitalism on the other hand, fits naturally with Neomasculinty and the Manosphere. Capitalism embraces competition and empowers men to work hard and innovate. In the free market the best product always wins because the consumers have the power. The same way the guy with best game attracts the most girls. For instance, the girl (the consumer) controls which guy (the business) to be with depending on how good his game (the product) is.

I think some guys look for the red pill knowledge to get laid, almost like a short cut. That is like trying to become wealthy just for fame and women.

The true happiness is when you work hard at something you love. If you do that, then over time wealth and maybe fame comes with it. It doesn't matter, you will be rewarded far more than some Hollywood star who had it all at 30 and crashed and burned by 50. Easy come, easy go.

Red pill knowledge isn't about getting laid. It is about growing as a man. And if you buy into socialism your entire outlook is that of being a helpless victim. As a man, this goes against our nature and the red pill, the red pill is learning to trust and believe in yourself. Once you trust and believe in yourself you will shine, you will walk with confidence and talk in a voice that booms, and with it comes the women as a secondary benefit.

Post: #134

(08-10-2015 09:33 PM)Marvin Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 11:10 PM)Hyperion Wrote:  Bernie is just another thug who will steal from productive people and give it to government workers,the lazy. End of story. LOL at thinking a Jewish socialist from New York is going to be a savior. Some lessons haven't been learned from the Russian Revolution.

I wonder how come that both Sanders and Trump from New York? They are opposites of each other but both been raised in the same city. Interesting!

Didn't New York host the HQ of the Wall Street bank of Warburg which sent Léon Trotsky to Russia to get rid of the Czar? His passage to Russia was not opposed by British authorities in Canada either. At the time of the Revolution, the media sold it to the US public as something that was no different than what Americans did in 1776.

The Left-Right system that we have in the west is the materialist dialectical process. For 'progress' to occur, political power must oscillate between Left and Right - like an alternating electrical current. It is the system of thesis and anti-thesis to produce the synthesis. This is why the UK started a strange parliamentary custom whereby a government would be elected to rule in the name of the king against a parliamentary opposition which would 'oppose' the government, in the name of the king.

Once this is understood, the fact that Wall Street and the City of London had an interest to support the Bolshevik Revolution and that SJWs since the 60s have been in co-operation with international finance, is not difficult to comprehend.

Post: #135

Delete

Post: #136

(08-11-2015 01:19 AM)Vanguard Wrote:  TigerMandingo- I agree with you that traditional values are deteriorating in the west. However, I don't think it's necessarily due to capitalism for 3 reasons.
1. I would argue that most western countries haven't really embraced pure capitilism. Scandinavia and Western Europe in particular, have incredibly high tax rates on both corporations and high earners, burdensome regulations, and government bailouts. These three things combined have pretty much eliminated the free market.

Can you expand on "pure" capitalism? And what is your definition of a "free market"? I'm honestly asking for your opinions on these matters, not being facetious.

Post: #137

Delete

Post: #138

He's a socialist. That's why people are against him. I am also against corporate welfare. The cure for that problem is not socialism--it's capitalism.

He also gets an F rating from Gun Owners of America.

http://www.gunowners.org/114srat.htm

Post: #139

(08-11-2015 01:29 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Can you expand on "pure" capitalism? And what is your definition of a "free market"? I'm honestly asking for your opinions on these matters, not being facetious.

It's a system in which all property is privately owned and all relationships and transactions are voluntary. The initiation of force is outlawed. Fraud is also outlawed.

Post: #140

Relevant, the chieftain of anti-socialism has put out a video.

Post: #141

I don't think Sanders himself is bad per se, but rather the fact he represents the SJWs, the minorities and all that crap that comes with the radical left that makes me worried.

I think the Democrats winning the presidency would see America become even more dominated by the feminists and SJWS with the tumblr crowd gaining even more power.

Better him the Hillary though, ANY FUCKING DAY.

Post: #142

(08-11-2015 12:37 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 11:15 PM)Vanguard Wrote:  Capitalism on the other hand, fits naturally with Neomasculinty and the Manosphere. Capitalism embraces competition and empowers men to work hard and innovate. In the free market the best product always wins because the consumers have the power. The same way the guy with best game attracts the most girls. For instance, the girl (the consumer) controls which guy (the business) to be with depending on how good his game (the product) is.

I don't think it's nearly as black-and-white as you make it out to be. Capitalism, and here I'm assuming you're referring to the Western-style system in place today, has caused much harm to the various causes of the manosphere. America has been turned into a marketplace where the only thing people care about is money and bullshit things they don't need. This must be what you meant by "consumers having the power'. Yea, the power to choose between 30 different types of peanut butter or toothpaste. So what has been lost? Family, traditions, culture, language. true friendship etc. Are these not the very things we keep talking about on this forum? You can't blame everything on feminism. The endgoal of capitalism is the creation of mindless consumers and the elimination of traditional values.

By the way, I'm not rooting for socialism here. Personally I don't give a shit how this all pans out.

This is a popular misconception that is contradicted by the historical record.

Capitalism is not responsible at all for today's cultural degeneracy.

The 18th and 19th centuries were basically all encompassing capitalistic free-for-alls, and there wasn't anything close to the levels of degeneracy we have today. In fact, things were so capitalistic you could buy and sell human beings as slaves in the 18th century and still you didn't see women slut themselves out at the age of 14. You didn't see men get thrown in jail by their wives before the frivorce or accused of false rape (unless you were the wrong race).

I'm not saying those days were perfect by any stretch. But blaming today's ills on capitalism makes no sense.

Post: #143

The degeneracy we see today all started with the Hippie movement in the 1960's, which came from the far left. It is not from capitalism. Corporatism sure, but not capitalism.

Post: #144

I don't think socialism could ever work any where, simply because it puts its power in the hand of a few people who have not necessarily done anything to earn/prove themselves.

But if socialism ever could work, it would take a very small homogeneous society of maybe a few million people at the most and women could not vote or have say at all. I still don't think it would work over the long term, but this is the only chance it would have. And in a country with 300,000,000+ people, many not even identifying with the nation itself, it would be a complete disaster.

Post: #145

^ I see socialism and capitalism as two sides of the same coin: both concentrate power in the hands of the few at the expense of the majority. Everything else is superfluous. You might argue existential things such as "but capitalism makes you a man and forces you to be self-sufficient!". Yea, sure, self-sufficient so that you can hand over a huge chunk of your income to support foreign wars, slutdom, and the degenerate consumer culture.

Socialism is a failure and now we're starting to finally see that so is capitalism. I read somewhere that the age of capitalism is coming to an end, possibly towards the end of the 21st century. A new system will spring forth, though it remains to be seen exactly what it will be and what it will entail.

Post: #146

(08-11-2015 09:17 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  ^ I see socialism and capitalism as two sides of the same coin: both concentrate power in the hands of the few at the expense of the majority. Everything else is superfluous. You might argue existential things such as "but capitalism makes you a man and forces you to be self-sufficient!". Yea, sure, self-sufficient so that you can hand over a huge chunk of your income to support foreign wars, slutdom, and the degenerate consumer culture.

Socialism is a failure and now we're starting to finally see that so is capitalism. I read somewhere that the age of capitalism is coming to an end, possibly towards the end of the 21st century. A new system will spring forth, though it remains to be seen exactly what it will be and what it will entail.

Capitalism puts the power in the hands of those who want to compete. Small business is the engine of capitalism. This puts the power in the hands of the people who want the power. It could be a few or it could be millions.

Socialism puts the power in the hands of govt. and if you have noticed, the people in DC are pretty clueless about most everything.

Post: #147

(08-11-2015 09:29 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Capitalism puts the power in the hands of those who want to compete. Small business is the engine of capitalism. This puts the power in the hands of the people who want the power. It could be a few or it could be millions.

Post: #148

(08-11-2015 09:40 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 09:29 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Capitalism puts the power in the hands of those who want to compete. Small business is the engine of capitalism. This puts the power in the hands of the people who want the power. It could be a few or it could be millions.

You are making the mistake of confusing capitalism with corporatism. They are not the same thing. Today the US has a corporatism economy.

Post: #149

The Hobbesian does a great job of dissecting the myth of the "corporatism is not capitalism" mantra.

Quote:This laughable cluelessness is no more apparent than in the common argument I hear that America is somehow “Corporatist” and not Capitalist. I constantly hear comparisons between “true capitalism” and “corporatism” and how in a “true free market” we would not see the powerful corporations that seem to exist in our present economy. They try to say that corporations as legal entities are the product of legislation, thus if you removed the government corporations would go away as well. This of course is nonsense, Corporations exist for a reason, they are found in every economic model on earth from laissez faire to Stalinist Communism. These clowns need an economics lesson to understand why corporations exist, and why they would most certainly be found in anarcho-capitalism and laissez faire.

Corporations exist for the purpose of pooling risk and pooling resources. The first modern corporations emerged in the Netherlands in early modern era. As the Age of Discovery unfolded, entrepreneurs saw opportunity in the vast trade networks that opened up in places like the Americas, Africa and Asia. Demand for fur, tobacco, guns, spices and slaves created an international trade by sea. Merchants tried tapping into markets far away from home. However, it became apparent that there was risk involved as well. One bad day at sea could sink a ship, and destroy the fortune of a merchant. So, to hedge this risk, merchants got together and created joint stock corporations which allows them pool the risk and uncertainty that came from operating an enterprise that spanned across vast distances and risked stormy seas, pirates and the ups and downs of the market. Thus a joint stock corporation could own 30 ships, if a few of them sank (the happening of which was all but inevitable) it would not bankrupt the company as they still owned many others that would be able to make up for the costs.

Post: #150

(08-11-2015 09:17 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  ^ I see socialism and capitalism as two sides of the same coin: both concentrate power in the hands of the few at the expense of the majority. Everything else is superfluous. You might argue existential things such as "but capitalism makes you a man and forces you to be self-sufficient!". Yea, sure, self-sufficient so that you can hand over a huge chunk of your income to support foreign wars, slutdom, and the degenerate consumer culture.

Socialism is a failure and now we're starting to finally see that so is capitalism. I read somewhere that the age of capitalism is coming to an end, possibly towards the end of the 21st century. A new system will spring forth, though it remains to be seen exactly what it will be and what it will entail.

Good points. I tend to view social systems in terms of complexity (i.e. Nassim Taleb) , which leads me to support 'open systems' and governance that supports bottom up processes (emergence, anti-fragility, democracy, pure capitalism).

There are two issues to this debate:

1) Capitalism provides no incentive to produce public goods at adequate levels, thus at least some top down, non market system is needed to ensure what we like to call civilized society.

2) In order to acheive enough stability for innovation to occur, some social nets are needed. For every software engineer that strikes gold, 10 others fail. If the consequences for failure were true destitution, entrepreneurs would take fewer risks and thus succeed or fail less frequently, with fewer net innovations as a result.