Post: #1

I am not a Marxist. I do recognize that Capitalism has brought a lot of good things to humanity. Still, we all know who fuels the usefull idiots that the Social Marxists are. The Capitalist Elite benefits from EVERYTHING that the SJWs push. They want to turn us into eternal consumerists. Cattle for the slaughter.

Reading this article on ROK made me tick. We can no longer pretend that there should be unlimited capitalism. It will always come to this, they will always corrupt society. Maybe that is why the Catholic Church forbade profit in the middle ages.

Capitalism is good. But how much of it? What should be its limits? I think as a system which inherently focuses only on money, it has to have severe limitations by society to restrain it from wrecking civilization to the ground.

I just want to spark discussion about it, think about solutions on how to balance the progress capitalism can bring with maintaining a healthy society.

Post: #2

I deeply believe in capitalism and I rarely go shopping or buy new things outside of food. I wear the same clothes for years and years.

It's an issue of impulse control. You don't have to buy anything you don't want to, or feel envy to want a bunch of shit you don't have.
That's like saying guns are the problem, when it's a character / moral issue of the user.

I would say it's stimulation overload that particularly preys on women. It's more of a reflection of the mental weakness of a population and unrestrained female consumption.
Companies like Apple and media companies can only 'push' what people buy. You don't have to buy any of their shit.

Post: #3

(12-31-2015 05:10 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  I deeply believe in capitalism and I rarely go shopping or buy new things outside of food. I wear the same clothes for years and years.

It's an issue of impulse control. You don't have to buy anything you don't want to, or feel envy to want a bunch of shit you don't have.
That's like saying guns are the problem, when it's a character / moral issue of the user.

I would say it's stimulation overload that particularly preys on women. It's more of a reflection of the mental weakness of a population and unrestrained female consumption.
Companies like Apple and media companies can only 'push' what people buy. You don't have to buy any of their shit.

I agree.

But that is not my point. I meant, they finance ideas that lead to corruption and destruction of societies. And they always will because it gives them money.

Post: #4

In a world of wolves and sheep, be the wolf.

Post: #5

Is the problem capitalism or that government programs have appropriated traditional functions of the family consequently producing people with personalities tailor-made for modern capitalism?

In other words -- is the problem capitalism or us?

Post: #6

(12-31-2015 05:32 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  Is the problem capitalism or that government programs have appropriated traditional functions of the family consequently producing people with personalities tailor-made for modern capitalism?

In other words -- is the problem capitalism or us?

I believe the government had appropriated those functions because capitalism wanted it to. Therefore, they can create better consumers.

Also, the Gramscian infiltration happening on all institutions on the West does not help.

Post: #7

Where is there "unlimited capitalism?" Corporatism would be a better term, especially in the US.

Post: #8

We have met the enemy and he is us.
-Pogo

Post: #9

(12-31-2015 05:00 PM)Wrathchild Wrote:  I am not a Marxist. I do recognize that Capitalism has brought a lot of good things to humanity. Still, we all know who fuels the usefull idiots that the Social Marxists are. The Capitalist Elite benefits from EVERYTHING that the SJWs push. They want to turn us into eternal consumerists. Cattle for the slaughter.

Reading this article on ROK made me tick. We can no longer pretend that there should be unlimited capitalism. It will always come to this, they will always corrupt society. Maybe that is why the Catholic Church forbade profit in the middle ages.

Capitalism is good. But how much of it? What should be its limits? I think as a system which inherently focuses only on money, it has to have severe limitations by society to restrain it from wrecking civilization to the ground.

I just want to spark discussion about it, think about solutions on how to balance the progress capitalism can bring with maintaining a healthy society.

You don't understand what Capitalism is. You are confusing it with fascism or mixed state socialism you see today. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services on a voluntary basis between people. The only alternative to Capitalism is force or fraud. So either you ARE a socialist or you just have bought into the socialist's definition of Capitalism which they use to convince people why they need to steal from you.

By the way, all feminist socialist troll arguments against Capitalism start with "It's good, but..."

Post: #10

I've never really understood economics or followed it. Is this an attempt to get me to vote for Bernie Sanders?

Post: #11

A serious problem with capitalism is it always leads to concentration of wealth. When 1% of the population start to own 30% or more of the national wealth -- like we see in the US -- it leads to wealth stagnation. When wealth circulation is restricted it leads to small businesses shutting down -- which leads to recessions and depressions. Middle class shrink and the poor increase.

You can call it Corporatism of Fascism or what ever -- it is still a by product or consequence of Capitalism -- meaning the freedom to accumulate unlimited wealth. The end result is destruction of society.

Until this this aspect of capitalism is corrected, the economy will continue to be like a roller coaster. Eventually the rich will resort to fraud, speculation, black mail etc to maintain staus quo.

Adam Smith' Capitalism was meant for small, medium and large size business to compete in a free market. However, if real competition is replaced by fraud and speculation -- by the rich -- then there is no real completion.

Post: #12

(12-31-2015 08:02 PM)tanner Wrote:  You can call it Corporatism of Fascism or what ever -- it is still a by product or consequence of Capitalism -- meaning the freedom to accumulate unlimited wealth. The end result is destruction of society.

Nonsense. Fascism is not a product of Capitalism it is one of it's opposites. You suffer from the same lack of understanding as the OP and in your case disregard for the meaning of words.

Capitalism is the free voluntary exchange of goods, services and money on a voluntary basis. If someone is rich in a Capitalist society it is because they have provided more value through their products or services that more people have freely chosen as wanting more than their money. They both benefit from the exchange.

In fascism limited ownership is allowed if in compliance with force of the state. Fascism means you can own a business or property if you do what you are told by the government, not by the market or by your choice. It is not based on nor a by product of Capitalism.

Post: #13

(12-31-2015 05:00 PM)Wrathchild Wrote:  Maybe that is why the Catholic Church forbade profit in the middle ages.

This is actually one of the best arguments for capitalism. If the ruling elite of the time forbid key concepts, then it's likely that it's the "true path" to follow. In this case, the church didn't want others to be able to accumulate enough wealth to challenge its position as the preeminent power in the civilized world.

The problem is that capitalism (and more accurately, corporatism) has become corrupted and intertwined with politics in a way that prevents all sorts of meaningful change for citizens. When publicly-traded companies are constantly worried about short-term growth at the expense of long-term vision, those in charge will do just about everything to keep their jobs, and increase their slice of the pie.

So mature companies are tasked with doing one of the following:

1) Regularly expand their product lines and technology to create revolutionary new products.

2) Expand into new markets that may or may not have the means to pay for their products.

3) Convince more people in the existing marketplace that they need their products.

4) Secure a legislative or regulatory victory that gives the company either a monopoly or a significant advantage in a given LOB via extensive lobbying.

5) If faced with stagnation, cut costs to ensure a relatively level return to shareholders.

6) Merge with and/or buy other companies doing the above to potentially better their position for the long term, either by securing a new technology, top talent, or blocking a competitor from gaining them.

If they can't figure out a way to do any of these, or if they swing and miss, they always have "Option 7":

7) Have current management take the fall, take their medicine for a quarter or a year, then try to find a new management team who can take over from this new, lower position, and restart the cycle of constant growth.

Don't get me wrong: there are companies doing a lot of really cool shit right now. SpaceX comes to mind. And there are a bunch of other startups that are doing awesome stuff every day that could be revolutionary, life-altering stuff.

But too often, we see ineffective leadership (see Carly Fiorina running the leading PC manufacturer in the country into the ground), "moves to block" made in acquisitions instead of "moves to grow," and shareholders and BODs too quick to pull the plug on an otherwise high-performing management group because of a couple of bad quarters.

So is capitalism, as an economic and values system, the problem? Not really. Could it be better? Sure, absolutely. But instead of focusing on the system as a whole, why don't we work on a system of incentives to improve shareholder patience and reduce corporatist power in government?

That's why I think Trump is an important first step for our system of government. If nothing else, he's the only candidate to have the independence and vision to deliver a significant blow to the corporatists over the next 4 years. He might be a RINO in sheep's clothing, but I really don't think so. If he can take away even a fraction of the power that lobbyists hold over the government, and steer us close to the right direction, it would be an enormous win for the U.S.

If not? The system continues to grind up good men in its search for the six goals above.

At least until it all falls apart...

Vigo

Post: #14

Capitalism is being reined in by Keynesian policies enacted by liberal administrations (Clinton, Obama) and interest groups like the AMA also push for regulation that restricts the free market.

If by "capitalism doesn't work" you mean that it's unable counter progressivist attempts to (ironically) hinder the progress of capitalism then yeah, you might be right.

And really, the measure of a econ/poli/cultural system is its real-world success. Communism has some appeal academically but doesn't work in the "lab" of actual life.

Looking at history, we've used capitalism to really explode technologically. But as far as sustainability, imperialism trumps everything.

Post: #15

Who cares.

Be part of the 1%. There is nothing stopping you than yourself.

There has never been an easier time in the history of humanity to be rich.

Post: #16

(12-31-2015 05:00 PM)Wrathchild Wrote:  We can no longer pretend that there should be unlimited capitalism.

Where is there "unlimited capitalism"?

Post: #17

Blaming capitalism, for America's economic predicament is one of the most used traps liberals and socialists lay out for people. Michael Moore did it speciously in Capitalism: A love story. America hasn't had "unlimited capitalism" in like a century if even then. Don't drink the kool-aid.

Post: #18

(12-31-2015 08:02 PM)tanner Wrote:  A serious problem with capitalism is it always leads to concentration of wealth. When 1% of the population start to own 30% or more of the national wealth -- like we see in the US -- it leads to wealth stagnation. When wealth circulation is restricted it leads to small businesses shutting down -- which leads to recessions and depressions. Middle class shrink and the poor increase.

You can call it Corporatism of Fascism or what ever -- it is still a by product or consequence of Capitalism -- meaning the freedom to accumulate unlimited wealth. The end result is destruction of society.

Until this this aspect of capitalism is corrected, the economy will continue to be like a roller coaster. Eventually the rich will resort to fraud, speculation, black mail etc to maintain staus quo.

Adam Smith' Capitalism was meant for small, medium and large size business to compete in a free market. However, if real competition is replaced by fraud and speculation -- by the rich -- then there is no real completion.

The problem with critiques of Capitalism are that they forget that humanity goes through bouts of technological improvement or faces mass depopulation due to war, disease, famine, or a mixture of the three.

The "wealth accumulation" you see these days has been caused by impressive population growth and consolidation of redundant industries and services.

What needs to happen and which hasn't happened yet are ground breaking technological inventions, a war, or some disease/famine to either bring about new work for people or shrink the population pool.

The mechanism of capitalism is the best means we have of distributing resources and services when best needed.

Necessity is the mother of invention and until there's a reason for us to expand our technological prowess the corollary of "humanity becoming depopulated due to war, famine, or disease" will be what spreads the wealth around.

Post: #19

I believe I have not made myself clear.

I am not saying it does not work. I am not trying to be a "It works, but..." person. I am saying that Capitalism brings the breaking of traditionalism within societies. That happens because Capitalists will finance ideas, actions, policticians, researches that make better consumers by destroying traditional sex roles, morals, etc.

I did not mean there is unlimited capitalism right now, but there are many who think it would be a good idea. I believe, as other person here said, it would lead To extreme wealth concentration and worst, the deepening of the societal decline.

Capitalism is the real reason, from my point of view, why the social marxists have been do successful, even before the Fall of the USSR(but having their progress accelerated after 1991 and due to better communication nowadays). Everything that the social marxists want will benefit the capitalist elite, and they IN turn finance social marxist ideals.

I think this is one of the most important problems in Capitalism, and since we share some of the ideals of this forum, how is it possible To balance the benefits of capitalism with the societal deterioration it brings? That is the only thing I ask.

Post: #20

(01-01-2016 12:42 PM)Wrathchild Wrote:  I believe I have not made myself clear.

I am not saying it does not work. I am not trying to be a "It works, but..." person. I am saying that Capitalism brings the breaking of traditionalism within societies. That happens because Capitalists will finance ideas, actions, policticians, researches that make better consumers by destroying traditional sex roles, morals, etc.

I did not mean there is unlimited capitalism right now, but there are many who think it would be a good idea. I believe, as other person here said, it would lead To extreme wealth concentration and worst, the deepening of the societal decline.

Capitalism is the real reason, from my point of view, why the social marxists have been do successful, even before the Fall of the USSR(but having their progress accelerated after 1991 and due to better communication nowadays). Everything that the social marxists want will benefit the capitalist elite, and they IN turn finance social marxist ideals.

I think this is one of the most important problems in Capitalism, and since we share some of the ideals of this forum, how is it possible To balance the benefits of capitalism with the societal deterioration it brings? That is the only thing I ask.

This response is cognitive dissonance at its finest. The United States of America has been a "capitalist" system since the founding of the Republic, and had strong, traditional families up until the late 1960's. If capitalism in and of itself was responsible for breaking down traditional sex roles and morality, then we would have seen these problems unfold a long time ago.

You said "Capitalism is the real reason, from my point of view, why the social marxists have been do successful." You do know that cultural marxism, where the state is the ultimate authority, religion is abolished, and is a direct opponent of western civilization comes from Marxism and Communism right? Also the notion that capitalism leads to extreme wealth inequalities is nonsense, as free market societies have stronger middle classes. How is the robust middle class in Venezuela and North Korea going?

Sure, the family unit has been destroyed and saying we have large social problems in this country is an understatement. As for your last question, everything starts with ourselves, and if we can start by being good examples for others and showing self-reliance rather than dependence, than this can slowly reverse the tide of societal destruction and bring back some liberty and freedom. Won't be easy, but is at least possible in a system that champions some individual freedom rather than totalitarian dictatorships.

Post: #21

(01-01-2016 12:42 PM)Wrathchild Wrote:  I believe I have not made myself clear.

I am not saying it does not work. I am not trying to be a "It works, but..." person. I am saying that Capitalism brings the breaking of traditionalism within societies. That happens because Capitalists will finance ideas, actions, policticians, researches that make better consumers by destroying traditional sex roles, morals, etc.

I did not mean there is unlimited capitalism right now, but there are many who think it would be a good idea. I believe, as other person here said, it would lead To extreme wealth concentration and worst, the deepening of the societal decline.

Capitalism is the real reason, from my point of view, why the social marxists have been do successful, even before the Fall of the USSR(but having their progress accelerated after 1991 and due to better communication nowadays). Everything that the social marxists want will benefit the capitalist elite, and they IN turn finance social marxist ideals.

I think this is one of the most important problems in Capitalism, and since we share some of the ideals of this forum, how is it possible To balance the benefits of capitalism with the societal deterioration it brings? That is the only thing I ask.

Capitalism is why Marxism is successful?

Do you want to understand what Capitalism is and un-brainwash yourself or are you just looking for others to make similarly hidden Marxist arguments that comply with your schooling and make you feel better about your subtle attack on Capitalism.

Post: #22

I cannot answer the question better than Yaron Brook. Please watch this video. The short answer:





The long answer:

Post: #23

Cultural Marxism and classical (Economic) Marxism are two different things.

Post: #24

(01-01-2016 02:48 PM)Durango Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 12:42 PM)Wrathchild Wrote:  I believe I have not made myself clear.

I am not saying it does not work. I am not trying to be a "It works, but..." person. I am saying that Capitalism brings the breaking of traditionalism within societies. That happens because Capitalists will finance ideas, actions, policticians, researches that make better consumers by destroying traditional sex roles, morals, etc.

I did not mean there is unlimited capitalism right now, but there are many who think it would be a good idea. I believe, as other person here said, it would lead To extreme wealth concentration and worst, the deepening of the societal decline.

Capitalism is the real reason, from my point of view, why the social marxists have been do successful, even before the Fall of the USSR(but having their progress accelerated after 1991 and due to better communication nowadays). Everything that the social marxists want will benefit the capitalist elite, and they IN turn finance social marxist ideals.

I think this is one of the most important problems in Capitalism, and since we share some of the ideals of this forum, how is it possible To balance the benefits of capitalism with the societal deterioration it brings? That is the only thing I ask.

This response is cognitive dissonance at its finest. The United States of America has been a "capitalist" system since the founding of the Republic, and had strong, traditional families up until the late 1960's. If capitalism in and of itself was responsible for breaking down traditional sex roles and morality, then we would have seen these problems unfold a long time ago.

You said "Capitalism is the real reason, from my point of view, why the social marxists have been do successful." You do know that cultural marxism, where the state is the ultimate authority, religion is abolished, and is a direct opponent of western civilization comes from Marxism and Communism right? Also the notion that capitalism leads to extreme wealth inequalities is nonsense, as free market societies have stronger middle classes. How is the robust middle class in Venezuela and North Korea going?

Sure, the family unit has been destroyed and saying we have large social problems in this country is an understatement. As for your last question, everything starts with ourselves, and if we can start by being good examples for others and showing self-reliance rather than dependence, than this can slowly reverse the tide of societal destruction and bring back some liberty and freedom. Won't be easy, but is at least possible in a system that champions some individual freedom rather than totalitarian dictatorships.

The reason why Capitalism never subverted society before is because it did not have the means to do it until the last century. The improvement on communications and transport allowed businesses to grow bigger than ever, and these larger businesses focus only on the money. Smaller capitalists of the past would focus on the money as well obviously, but they would still be family men that had received proper education from an stable family, they would never whore their ideals for money such as the men in controll of large corporations today do.

What I am talking about is, for an example, a large company such as Starbucks financing Gay propaganda, or Disney pushing for multi-culturalism and girl power. I am not attacking capitalism on itself as a system of production of wealth, but I am saying it, nowadays specially, is one of the main pushers of PC propaganda and social marxist ideals, which lead to the degenerate society we see today.

Quote:Capitalism is why Marxism is successful?

Do you want to understand what Capitalism is and un-brainwash yourself or are you just looking for others to make similarly hidden Marxist arguments that comply with your schooling and make you feel better about your subtle attack on Capitalism.

I am saying it pushes social marxist ideals into society. Capitalists are using Social Marxism to degenerate society into better consumers. The things we criticize (feminism, anti-male agenda, multiculturalism) are only possible because they have the support of big corporations.

Also, Capistalism will always bring on this kind of degeneracy if allowed to get big enough, it will controll the media, banks and education; it will bring the uneducated neutral majority to the leftist fold as it has been doing in the West unstopably so for a long time, electing leftist governments, who in turn push for more social marxism, which degenerates society even further.

Also, as RexImperator said, I am talking only about Social Marxism.

Post: #25

Edit: Accidentally posted the same thing twice, ignore this.