Post: #26

The agents that promote social disintegration, such as SJW's and feminists, are PROFOUNDLY anti-capitalist.

Cultural Marxism is the problem. Capitalism actually confers a greater measure of freedom. Which does not mean everyone will escape the "temptations" of giving into rampant consumerism. I am a staunch capitalist and do not fit into this consumerist mold at all. Like many others who actually support free-market. Unlike the social democrats that "tolerate" some parts of the free-market and tax the rest.

Post: #27

While I can agree with some parts of your rhetoric it should be stated we don't really live in a capitalist system, but rather in a corporative oligarchic system. Who facilitates the existence of such a system? The State itself. Capitalism within itself has no "goal". It's a description, not a prescription. It would be wrong to blame it for cultural marxism.

Post: #28

(01-01-2016 09:29 PM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  While I can agree with some parts of your rhetoric it should be stated we don't really live in a capitalist system, but rather in a corporative oligarchic system. Who facilitates the existence of such a system? The State itself. Capitalism within itself has no "goal". It's a description, not a prescription. It would be wrong to blame it for cultural marxism.

Agreed. I was wrong on my assertion that Capitalism itself is the main problem. But still, we can not deny the fact that Social Marxists infiltrated in Gramscian style many corporations and use them as a way to push the social decline. Also, while your usual SJW may be anti-capitalist, the ones controlling corporations and even the State are not. They are using both their corporations and the State to pursue their agenda.

Gramscian tactics mean they infiltrate an institution, deturpate it, and use it to further their goals. I think that what I am criticizing is probably such infiltration on big corporations who are pushing PC ideals, and such ideals benefit their corporations. The average SJW ends up as the typical usefull idiot.

Post: #29

No matter what anyone writes you are going to write more contradictory nonsense.

You are just repeating what you heard from your Communist professors rather than trying to think for yourself or understand what Capitalism is. You still don't based on your replies.

Post: #30

Offthereservation,

Argue with your intellect, not with witch-hunt name calling. If anyone is a troll, it's you vehemently pushing arrogant anarcho-capitalist/ultra-voluntarism ideas and not willing to bend an inch. No one on this forum is obligated to love capitalism. This is coming from the guy who started the thread on cultural Marxism if you want to know how I feel about that topic. Don't bother replying to me and accusing me of being a troll as well because I won't be back to read it. I'm here to moderate on this topic since you can't be civil to difference of opinion.

-------------------

While I don't agree with everything, Wrathchild is making his points clearly enough to be understood.

In a nutshell, he believes that:

-capitalism works for societies when they have a solid cultural base to stand a capitalist market on. When a pro-social, altruistic, communal society doesn't exist, capitalism can result in social decay and turmoil. This is an important concept to address because we are living in it in the USA now. Even the renowned philanthropist Carnegie resorted to ending strikes by turning firearms onto his striking employees. To say that capitalism itself has built in moral triggers is faulty as can be. Vile corruption in capitalism was present before the current levels of over regulation of today where a lemonade stand can pop up without red tape and licenses.

-Jack Donovan writes in the way of men that; in the nature of large corporate entities it's not that a tyrant is at the helm, but that the continuous pull of convenience, stability, liability and cohesion naturally led to more doomed egalitarianism, over regulation in hazard avoidance and dramatically increases disposability of all employees.

To expand on the last topic, Donovan believes that the company policy board is actually more destructive than a single owner at the head of a corporation. His reasoning is that the natural trajectory of such consensus gives us the equal opportunity policies as they are today, the "kid gloves" safety regulations all to avoid liability only, neglecting hiring "dynamic personalities" "movers/shakers" and the politically incorrect because more human resource reports and investigations means more wasted money. All in all, businesses of any sizable bulk will fall into this model at some point because the only concern is money.

Ultimately what Wrathchilds posts I've gathered that he's pointing to the fact that capitalism leads to oligarchy on a long enough time scale. What I drew with my own conclusion is that it's possibly democratic-capitalism that's caused the destruction more than capitalism alone. Democracy is not a system that I believe in, so I disagree with others opinions here on both accounts.

For those that really think they're edgy, I'd like to see one of you unbridled capitalism supporters debate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which effectively obstructs capitalism in very distinct market functions.

Post: #31

where is your thread?

Edit

if op started with " I am a Marxist " as his first line he would deserve not to be called a troll.

But starting with " I am not a Marxist" to make a Marxist argument is trolling at its finest.

Post: #32

(01-01-2016 09:27 PM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  The agents that promote social disintegration, such as SJW's and feminists, are PROFOUNDLY anti-capitalist.

Cultural Marxism is the problem. Capitalism actually confers a greater measure of freedom. Which does not mean everyone will escape the "temptations" of giving into rampant consumerism. I am a staunch capitalist and do not fit into this consumerist mold at all. Like many others who actually support free-market. Unlike the social democrats that "tolerate" some parts of the free-market and tax the rest.

Well written!

Post: #33

This is not particularly rigorous, but consider as a thought-experiment:
The standout problem of Marxism is the same problem of Capitalism: you can't reduce human effort to economics, because nobody is working in a vacuum under either system. If output is the motive of a socialist state, and the worker on a state farm or tractor factory is only thought of in terms of output, then the commisar will raise the target until it can no longer be met, and every time the impossibility becomes evident, look for other ways to meet it, like slave labour or automation or whatever else springs to mind. If profit is the aim of capitalism, then the same thing happens, until the amount of profit that an accountant or editor or accounts exec can generate is insufficient and outsourcing or AI or socialising losses and privatising costs become greater returns on investment than paying some poor sap to sit at a desk and grind through the same work.

And on the other side, a socialist state ends up wanting consumption to be regulated so that everyone has the same requirement for fuel, food and living space, and a capitalist state wants consumption to be unfettered, so that cheap production and cheap credit can allow for massive purchasing of consumer and lifestyle goods beyond what's needed or even wanted, or at all justifiable.

In a socialist country, what you produce is your value. In a capitalist one, what you consume is your worth-not solely in an economic sense but in a social one; you gain 'credit' for producing or buying goods. The utility of those goods is questionable after long enough period under either system, but the notion of worth remains.

But those metrics are only useful fgrom the point of view of an oligarchy which cares not at all about quality of life or purpose in it or anything else. It reduces human society to a balance sheet.

Post: #34

Criticisms of capitalism didn't only come from Marx. In the antebellum period, John C. Calhoun had some interesting things to say (TLDR: Capitalism is actually worse than slavery.)

Quote:Ever since Richard Hofstadter called John C. Calhoun the “Marx of the Master Class,” at least, American historians have pondered the relationship between the pro-slavery critique of Northern wage labor and later left-wing critiques of capitalism. One of Calhoun’s great themes, as Hofstadter noted, was the inevitable “conflict between labor and capital,” a conflict that threatened to overwhelm the “free institutions” of the North.

Unlike Marx, of course, Calhoun and other southerners believed the solution to this problem was not the liberation but the subjugation of the laboring classes. Only the system of human bondage itself had exempted the South from this dangerous class conflict, and only the slaveholding South—the “great conservative power” of the nation, as Calhoun put it—could help preserve the delicate equilibrium between capital and labor in the nonslaveholding states.
...
Calhoun himself, as Hofstadter noted, linked criticism of slavery to criticism of capital as early as 1836: “A very slight modification of the arguments used against the institutions which sustain the property and security of the South would make them equally effectual against the institutions of the North, including banking, in which so vast an amount of property and capital is invested.”

In his 1850 speech, Robert Hunter turned Calhoun’s observation into a prediction: “Sir, it is well that we should consider where these abolition doctrines will lead us. The property holder of the North may experience no inconvenience from them as yet, but his time will come—sooner or later, it must come.”

http://earlyamericanists.com/2014/05/13/...-congress/

Post: #35

What capitalism, where?

(01-02-2016 11:51 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  TLDR: Capitalism is actually worse than slavery.

Also turns out that a house is worse that a jail . In a jail, if you have a shitty room and shitty housemates, you can whinge about it, and complain about how you have no choice. In a house, you can only blame yourself, which is most odious to the democratic mind.

Post: #36

I will throw my two cents here.

I am also a Capitalist. Unfortunately, many people tend to forget that Capitalism, despite its flaws, is the best economical and social system, not to mention natural, that us humans have, despite all its shortcomings.

We tried to replace it with Socialism. Result - tens of millions dead, and many societies are still rebuilding from it's evil (Eastern Europe for example).

Good example is Czech Republic. Before WW2, they were more developed than Germany. Where are they now?

Also, how is former Eastern Germany doing, compared to former Western Germany?

We tried to replace it with Communism. We never managed to come even close, because it is against human nature.

How are the kibuttzim in Israel doing (in which they use this system)? Good, because the State intervenes. Otherwise, they would fail big time.

We tried to replace it with Fascism and Nazism (these are not just ideologies, but economical systems as well. Offthereservation explained how it works already - as long as your business does what the government says).

Millions dead, whole continent ruined.

Many people tend to forget all of this. Why... I don't know.

Aaron Clarey said it best - all the professors are scum.

Post: #37

I think that OP is right at raising the issue here, but I would say that our definition of capitalism is a bit limited and leads to confusions. Also there are major disagreements of one of the chief tenets of capitalism which will be problematic and is the root of most evil in the world.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit.[1] Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labour and competitive markets.[2][3] In a capitalist market economy, investments are determined by private decision and the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which they exchange assets, goods, and services.[4]

Now if that was all there was about capitalism, then there would be nothing wrong with that. However it is like the dictionary definition of feminism - it sounds good on paper, but the problem lies in the detail.

The free markets Adam Smith talked about truly work only in local small and 18th century economies. Massive economies of scale and concentration of power and wealth make those markets inefficient and are terrible prone to create oligopolies.
Even worse is the actual tip that our current system gives - capitalism - the rule of capital. Also some have called it the state-sanctioned system of usury. With capital and usury you end up controlling everything sooner or later. We are already in the end stages of that system where a shadowy elite has been busy amassing true wealth and is hardly represented at the Forbes 100 list.

I would recommend the excellent blog Realcurrencies by a monetary reformer Anthony Migchels:

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/201...apitalism/

I will quote a good part of that article here:

Quote:I agree that we want to call the current system Capitalism. After all, it is our current system we are talking about and want to reform. However, the notion that Capitalism is associated with ‘free markets’ strikes me as very odd indeed. Because we can easily ascertain that in this world there are no free markets. Every major industry in the world, be it Big Pharma, Energy, Food, Telecommunications & IT, Aviation, Weapons, Automotive Industry, is run by a small number of gigantic Transnationals. These Transnationals only compete nominally. They divide the market between them, control the watchdogs intended to supervise them, set the rules of the game, cooperate in keeping the market between them and to keep prices high. They operate as cartels.

The situation is aggravated by the fact that all these cartels are actually proxies of the money power that controls them.

So the real situation is that our so called ‘free markets’ are basically one gigantic Money Power controlled Trust.

The idea that we live in a ‘free market’ economy is simply another Orwellian thought control operation, comparable to the ‘Freedom is Slavery’ and ‘War is Peace’ slogans.

Big Brother likes his slogans and he has many of them. And why shouldn’t he? They are very effective.

Defining Capitalism

So there is no generally accepted definition of capitalism and the idea that capitalism is in some way related to free markets does not withstand critical examination.

So let me propose my definition:

“Capitalism is an economic system where Capital dominates Labor through control of the money supply.”

Money being a medium of exchange by agreement. Capital and Labor being the Factors of Production.

Surely this is not a definition that everybody will immediately accept, so I will elaborate a little.

To begin with,we should consider that (as one capitalist once put it) “Capital, if it is to co-operate untrammeled, must be free to establish a monopoly of industry and trade.”.

Marx also analyzed that Capitalism tends to monopoly.

So, domination of Labor by Capital will express itself by monopolies and Capital’s natural tendency is toward monopoly. We have already established that the major industries seem to behave like cartels. The reason these transnationals have not organized themselves in outright monopolies is Standard Oil: Americans got fed up with monopolies, so the Capitalists had to settle for cartels, which is only slightly less efficient when you control the market.

Many others have pointed out that Capitalism and Communism share this monopolistic tendency. Communism, after all, is also a monopoly. In the hands of the State (we will forget about the poor proletariat……). The question is then, who owns the State and it has been established without a doubt that Capital financed the communist revolutions and controlled the Communist States. One only has to think of Averell Harriman running the Stalin war effort to get the picture.

Communism is therefore not Capitalism’s antithesis, but merely a subset. Actually it is a more direct expression of Capitalism than our current system.

By this analysis we have established that Capital is indeed in control in the production process.

Means of control

In our system, and throughout modern history, Capital has been controlling labor through the control of the money supply.

The money supply is used for control first by keeping money scarce, and second by making money as expensive as possible.

By keeping the medium of exchange scarce, there is always unemployment, forcing Labor to accept detrimental conditions.

But how can we say money is scarce? Isn’t the world awash in cash? Yes, but every dollar is a debt to the bank. And these debts have to repaid. This in itself is not a problem, the problem is, that we need to pay interest over these debts. And there is simply not enough money to pay off the debts plus the interest.

Unemployment has been shown to be an unbeatable plague in Western societies for centuries. For the simple reason that by keeping money scarce economies never can function at their full production capacity. During the Gold Standard economies were chronically depressed and the proliferate printing of debt money did nothing to alleviate the situation.

Not only is money scarce through interest, it is excruciatingly expensive. The poorest 80% of the western populace pay trillions in interest per year to the richest 10% (the next richest 10% pay as much interest as they receive).

The reason for this is, that producers pass on ‘capital costs’ they incur to consumers. People don’t realize that up to 45% of prices they pay are for capital costs. So even when you don’t owe any debts, you still lose up to 45% of your income to interest.

In these ways, by controlling the money supply, Capital is insured to be the bottleneck in production, leading to its supremacy.

When you know the problem, the solution is usually easy

Our Masters are very adept in pitting us against each other by controlling the flow of idea’s and language. They let us play with concepts we don’t understand and which they define and invent. ‘Capitalism’, ‘Communism’, ‘Inflation’, ‘Free Markets’, all these concepts have been shown to be misunderstood.

These misunderstandings lead to bad analysis and even worse solutions.

Nowadays we say ‘Free Markets’ have failed. As if there are any. Because of the problem we are discussing, people are now actually believing that we need to more ‘supervise’ these ‘Free Markets’. Whereas our current system has shown without a doubt that regulators are usually simply doing the bidding of the industries they are supposed to keep in check.

We can also be led to believe that since these ‘Free Markets’ operate globally, we need global solutions. Which of course is the Capitalist’s coveted World Governance.

Now that we can see that Capitalism’s defining nature is simply Capital being the bottleneck in Production, we know the solution must be to make Labor the bottleneck. Labor should be the scarce factor of production.

A Free Market economy, with sufficient money circulating to let Labor become the scarce Factor of Production. An economy with an interest free money supply and the availability of interest free credit would facilitate this.

I don’t believe that great monopolies will survive for long if many people and organizations gain access to all markets, access which is now inhibited due to lack of finance. If you have ever worked for a big company or any other bureaucracy, you will quickly realize that these organizations are so inefficient that they can never survive the competition of small, agile firms.

The only reason they are successful now is that they are being financed by the Money Trust and normal people are not.

Capitalism IS slavery. Because Labor are the many and Capital is controlled by the few. Capitalism in its favored form, Communism, has shown us everything we need to know about allowing them to establish their World Government.

At this critical point in History we, as a people, finally need to get the monetary issue under control. The clamor for Gold as currency is understandable, considering the negative experience with fractional reserve (central) banking. But there is another school of thought that we need to consider before making a well informed decision.

Let’s study Thomas Greco, Charles Eisenstein, Dick Eastman, Hank Monrobey, Ellen Brown, Margrit Kennedy, Mike Montagne and Bernard Lietaer.

Economics can be a Sacred Science once more.

In my opinion one cannot define capitalism as

You can scan through other articles at that site like Socialism is not the answer for Capitalism: https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/201...apitalism/

There are superior systems in place.

In my opinion a far better system would be:

1. Free market with tight borders, tariffs as major tax income for states. Everything that a country can produce well enough should be done within a given state.
2. Money creation without usury using either social credit or mutual credit. Self-owned property should be able to be purchased by each citizen usury-free.
3. In order to keep markets free and prevent oligopolies or monopolies a small but super-powerful anti-trust body has to be created and also always supervised by any party.
4. Accumulation of wealth and most importantly productive wealth in the form of companies should be possible, but frankly point 2 would create a super-wealthy country anyway since usury sucks off 50% of all productive capacity transferring wealth from the 99% mainly to the 0,01%.

Thus a true free market system should contain some elements of current capitalism while combating other elements. Also we have to realize that massive concentration of bargaining power in capital and factory owners creates a Dickensian style economy of shoeless workers in a shoe-factory. No one wants to return to that. Proper labor representation should be natural.

And frankly a money-less society in a highly technologically advanced society should be possible as well, but for that discussion one may refer to the IDEAL SYSTEM THREAD OR "WHO CONTROLS THE US"

/thread-42802.html
/thread-48745.html

It's tought to truly analyze capitalism without looking through the pitfalls of the system. And no - the Wikipedia dictionary definition does not cut it. As an economist I can tell you that students and professors are not taught about the true alternatives out there and thus they think that our current system is the only choice. It's one major psyops in reality just like feminism - the simple definition has nothing to do with the real reasons behind it.

Post: #38

Note:

Capitalism, communism, social and fascism aren't the only economic systems to have existed. I'm not an economics expert, but I have been taught enough by econ fanatics to know that they'd speak up if such a case were presented.

Another important distinction to make - while capitalism as a system may be the subjective best in the minds of many here, that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be tolerated or implemented into existence throughout the future.

Post: #39

<I>Capitalism within itself has no "goal". </I>

Yes it does. More capital. Always more capital.

Was going to post but then saw Zelcorpion's linked piece...

<b>Communism is therefore not Capitalism’s antithesis, but merely a subset. Actually it is a more direct expression of Capitalism than our current system.</b>

Post: #40

(01-03-2016 02:02 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  We tried to replace it with Socialism.

We tried to replace it with Communism. We never managed to come even close, because it is against human nature.

We tried to replace it with Fascism and Nazism

Instead of saying "replace," consider that those things are just another expression of people trying to consolidate and gain more capital. Do you think Capital cringes at "socialist medicine," or makes a few adjustments to its business model? Do you think Capital would eliminate food stamps tomorrow?

Or do you think the type of people who call themselves "Capitalists" on the internet and have little or no actual capital are enraged, while those who actually own the means of productions tweek a few things.

Post: #41

(12-31-2015 10:59 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

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

Where is there "unlimited capitalism"?

Actually in Communist Red China the irony is they are the world's most successful predatory Capitalists with the advantage of a pool of 1.3 Billion slave laborers and nearly 600 USD Billionaire Oilgarchs who do what the Politboro and Central Committee tell them to do - keep borrowing, keep building, keep growing, keep stealing the dumb EU and USA's proprietary technology and intellectual property - keep BEATING the rest of the world through every currency and financial and economic manipulation possible aided and abetted by EU and USA multi-national Corporatists with a join em versus beat em mentality.

Most of the problems with Capitalism in the G20 can be traced backed to Chinese predatory practices towards the rest of the G20 and developing world.

Post: #42

(01-03-2016 04:24 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  Most of the problems with Capitalism in the G20 can be traced backed to Chinese predatory practices towards the rest of the G20 and developing world.

Never heard this before. Obviously heard about the things you mentioned (IP theft, financial manipulations, etc), but never that it is why the West's Capitalism appears this way. Care to expand or put up some links?

Post: #43

(01-03-2016 04:34 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 04:24 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  Most of the problems with Capitalism in the G20 can be traced backed to Chinese predatory practices towards the rest of the G20 and developing world.

Never heard this before. Obviously heard about the things you mentioned (IP theft, financial manipulations, etc), but never that it is why the West's Capitalism appears this way. Care to expand or put up some links?

REFORMING THE U.S.-CHINA TRADE RELATIONSHIP TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/u...ade-reform

Post: #44

(01-03-2016 04:48 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  REFORMING THE U.S.-CHINA TRADE RELATIONSHIP TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/u...ade-reform

Interesting. Thanks.

Post: #45

(01-02-2016 10:44 AM)offthereservation Wrote:  

No matter what anyone writes you are going to write more contradictory nonsense.

You are just repeating what you heard from your Communist professors rather than trying to think for yourself or understand what Capitalism is. You still don't based on your replies.

How am I contradicting myself? The only thing I admited was that I might be wrong in blaming Capitalism itself for the social decline, but I still stand with the point that it helps degeneracy in society to grow.

I have studied with many marxist teachers indeed, both here in Brazil and in the US, but I have never seen any of them saying that Capitalism helps SJW propaganda as if it were a bad thing. In fact, they would put me on the cross for saying something like that.

I believe we are on the same side here, we are Capitalists, but we have to recognize its faults, not blindly follow it as if it were perfect.

As TonySandos put it better than I could:

Quote:In a nutshell, he believes that:

-capitalism works for societies when they have a solid cultural base to stand a capitalist market on. When a pro-social, altruistic, communal society doesn't exist, capitalism can result in social decay and turmoil. This is an important concept to address because we are living in it in the USA now. Even the renowned philanthropist Carnegie resorted to ending strikes by turning firearms onto his striking employees. To say that capitalism itself has built in moral triggers is faulty as can be. Vile corruption in capitalism was present before the current levels of over regulation of today where a lemonade stand can pop up without red tape and licenses.

-Jack Donovan writes in the way of men that; in the nature of large corporate entities it's not that a tyrant is at the helm, but that the continuous pull of convenience, stability, liability and cohesion naturally led to more doomed egalitarianism, over regulation in hazard avoidance and dramatically increases disposability of all employees.

This is what I am attacking in capitalism: the fact that huge capitalists will fomment social degeneracy in order to obtain profit, this is not only a easily verifiable fact but it has been written about on ROK on quite a few articles. Why do you think Roosh is boycotting Starbucks?

Social marxists would never adress something like that, they are happy that capitalist institutions are being used to further their goals.
Also, dont be a SJW, try to discredit the arguments, not the person.

Post: #46

All highly developed economies are mixed market,that being having some elements of socialism being primary market based. Interesting historical fact ,In Western Europe huge portions of shares of large firms were nationalized so the commies couldn't take em as war reparations. So Ironically ''we need socialism to prevent socialism'' As an American with strong recent European heritage who is now and most likely forever going to reside on this beautiful continent that I believe is the closest thing to heaven,I'm going to throw in my two cents , Note : the problems with ''capitalism''
I have are the ones with Anglo American capitalism specifically (US,UK,AU,NZ,CA,IE),but Ill mention the benefits of ''Rhine Capitalism''


I also firmly believe the fact Eastern Europe,South East Asia and South America is more traditional is not a matter of capitalism or socialism,its a matter of values firmly ingrained in their citizenry, the welfare state exists everywhere,sure its easier for women in the west to go completely ''solo'',but its more or less culturally related,not how much one gets with social welfare


I am very much against gay marriage,unlimited state funded reproductive care and anti discrimination laws

I guess my views are mostly inline with the political ''inversion'' of Eastern Europe. But the left /right divide is Bullshit and it will be between globalists and nationalists in the end anyways. Please remember the likes of Hitler and Stalin were essentially globalist in nature. They robbed and stole from others outside their own realms.


I do believe the extreme free market vibe in the sphere should be looked at critically. Roosh himself is against corporate consumeristic modern culture and has complained about the food culture numerous times on his blog.

1 Public (though massively scaled down ,hence more efficient) universities across Europe not only minimize the SJW bullshit but allow no financial debt ,putting less strains of relationships,young peoples finances,less divorce issues and more money in your pocket as the tax burden is the same due to a better streamlined university system



2 Marketing and corporations pandering to women, look we can all go Gault but high taxes do minimize this,the average European has a lot less crap than the average North American


3 Regulations that prevent endocrine disruption

Europeans being against the proposed EU/US trade agreement want high quality,anti frankenfood products that wont artificially lower T levels

4 Closed borders, this is a measure of state control


5 Labor law, We all travel the world and companies in the US can afford to milk it a bit more in favor of their employees, relaxed workers are not only more productive but can travel and game beautiful women as well

6 working hard for the sake of working hard is problematic and the overwhelming focus on entrepreneurship is a problem as a benefit of extreme Anglo American free market capitalism.

Most self employed people with a few exceptions are not living the 4 hour work week,they are massively sleep deprived and their project is more or less their life. This American get rich quick hustler mentality is a huge problem ,hard work is hard work,we only have so many hours in any given day. The average playboy would be better off with a skilled trade or 5 or 6 weeks of vacation than starting a firm and sweating away at it constantly.

Post: #47

(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.

Definitely agree,the problem with the extreme free market libertarian types in the manosphere is something that needs to be addressed more often.

Post: #48

(12-31-2015 05:00 PM)Wrathchild Wrote:  I am not a Marxist.

Your language is Marxist; ergo, you are a Marxist, whether you like it or not.

"Capitalism" is nothing more than a Marxist strawman. The word didn't exist before Marx started complaining about being a trustfund baby, it was a cheap-shot to complain about property owners, to paint all of them with the brush of the extremely small minority of factory owners during a time of major economic disruption.

The only reason people on the right call themselves "Capitalist" these days, is that even its the insulting strawman is so much more wildly successful compared to the alternative, that it became a compliment. Think "Douchebag" - aka, the guy whom women sleep with.

Adam Smith was not a "Capitalist"; when he wrote The Wealth of Nations, it was clearly premised upon-

God
Family
Country

-first, and economic management a distant second.

Saying Capitalism is bad is like saying that science is bad, because it built the nuclear bomb. Capitalism - and science - are nothing more than reality. If you want to invent something that works - or if you want an economy that functions - you choose reality. You can use that science to murder people, or you can use that economy to invade another nation, but it doesn't change the fact that science and Capitalism are the best tools for the job, regardless of what that job is.

Capitalism - or, free markets - are not a value system, they're a method. Stop conflating the two - that's what Marxists do. They poison the well, and they derail the conversation, by confusing terms. You want a better world? Then you want more Capitalism.

Post: #49

"Saying Capitalism is bad is like saying that science is bad, because it built the nuclear bomb."

Great summary of the OP's point which appeared to be that capitalism is bad because money made under capitalism is being used to fund SJW nonsense (a la the Ford Foundation which Menace mentioned in a post recently).

Post: #50

The tragic part is that Henry Ford was actually not an equalist what so ever. That's the paradox of our current situation that we're trying to understand.