Post: #51

@ Aurini

Your post made lots of sense until your last paragraph.

"Capitalism - or, free markets - are not a value system, they're a method. Stop conflating the two - that's what Marxists do."

Capitalism IS a value system (though maybe you meant a moral value system), it always values what leads to more capital accumulation.

But it is far more complicated.

Capital: "a type of good that can be consumed now, but if consumption is deferred an increased supply of consumable goods is likely to be available later. Adam Smith defines capital as 'That part of a man's stock which he expects to afford him revenue is called his capital.'"

You can see that this definition is not specific to any "good," including money. This is why capital's form is ever changing. Think 200 years ago when that nasty black shit seeped out of the ground and ruined part of a farmer's crop. Fast forward and suddenly the farmer was sitting on an ocean of "black gold." On the opposite end, think about a carriage maker in the 1920's. Suddenly his factory, molds, and other capital goods became nearly worthless.

Or more important to this topic, consider television programming. How would "Leave It To Beaver" do today? How would "The Kardashians" fare in 1960?

What humans value defines what capital is (at least for now). That is probably why Adam Smith wrote extensively on what you call "God, Family, Country." The modern Capitalist cheerleader Ayn Rand also wrote extensively on morality and says someone who follows her morality would naturally choose laissezz-faire capitalism. But what about those men who don't follow her morality or have any sense of "God, Family, Country."

More specifically, what about those who have no moral value.

"You want a better world? Then you want more Capitalism."

Without those aforementioned "morals," many necessarily default to "value what leads to more capital accumulation?" Sure, Capital may not "impose" this judgment as any moral value; but it does reinforce it. This may not be such a big deal if the rest of the market does have those "morals," but if none of them do? Or if Capital discovers it can actually accumulate more by undermining those "morals?"

Additionally; consider someone who really doesn't have any marketable skills and lives in a ruined State, lets say an artist. After years of destitute frustration, the man discovers a certain group within his country has been cutting deals with the enemy and is generally responsible for the country's state of affairs. He has no Capital, but he devises a way to get power beyond his imagination. He organizes a political party, creates violent protests, agitates for removal of the traitorous group, and after years his party finally wins a few seats. Through wonderfully executed intimidation, propaganda, and electioneering he is even named to the highest office a few years later and begins to consolidate all of the country under his power. His party controls everything under the auspices of the "Fatherland." From broke artist to controlling a major States entire economy; Capitalism: A Love Story?

Is that the "better world" you envision capitalism creating?

Or does this story not qualify? Are you still hung up on the "free" market part? Capital does not value "free" markets, it values whatever leads to more capital. Or was capital somewhere weeping over slave-labor cotton, waiting with bated breath for the day when it would be picked by free men?

Post: #52

“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).”

The point seems to be that a society without some sort of restraining mechanisms against “capital accumulation as prime value” will be more susceptible to other forces (including certain uses of capital) undermining the very value system that lead to the society’s prosperity and happiness.

“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.”

As Aurini mentioned earlier, the term Capitalism was created to juxtapose against Socialism/Communism. Yet even a Socialist/Communist country must create positions, filled by men, with the power to create and execute a plan to “accumulate more capital.” In other words, “Communism is therefore not Capitalism’s antithesis, but merely a subset. Actually it is a more direct expression of Capitalism than our current system.”

Sure the messaging may change from “I will lead you to $x profit” to “I will strengthen the Fatherland.” And the tactics may change from “I will increase market share and decrease costs” to “I will award you this position/contract for voting in my favor.”

But what matters, what always matters: Who gets what.

Post: #53

We're not a true capitalist society. In fact there isn't one in existence, so I don't see how "capitalism" can be critiqued in the way you have. The current system is broken as you allude to, but it's broken not because of the capitalist ideas but because it's a capitalism tainted with the worst parts of socialism. The two don't mix.

Besides, Socialism and Communism bring about the issues you fear are then some, with none of the benefits we (hard working, ambitious people) enjoy in this current quasi-capitalist society.

OP, send me your email address and I'll gift you a subscription to digital subscription to Reason Magazine. You'll learn far more from that than whatever you're currently reading.

Post: #54

(01-05-2016 06:10 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  We're not a true capitalist society. In fact there isn't one in existence, so I don't see how "capitalism" can be critiqued in the way you have. The current system is broken as you allude to, but it's broken not because of the capitalist ideas but because it's a capitalism tainted with the worst parts of socialism. The two don't mix.

Because the "true capitalism" you are imagining is just the wet-dream of a pacifist fucking a business man?

Why doesn't your ideal exist? Why hasn't it ever existed? Because it's just fairy tale that has no idea what reality looks like. Ala, socialism failed because the rulers weren't benevolent. Ala, just be yourself to get that One True Love.

E.g. Let's take 370 million Captain Capitalism clones to replace the current inhabitants of the US. First thing they must do is sort themselves out to fill all the different roles in society. Then they reshape the govt, etc into your "true capitalism." Could this now work? Maybe for a couple of days. Then some of the Aaron Clareys realize that as clones, those who have more power, capital, etc. were just lucky.

So some of the "aspiring Elite" Aaron Clareys organize the poor Aaron Clareys and...

Post: #55

(01-05-2016 11:52 AM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 06:10 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  We're not a true capitalist society. In fact there isn't one in existence, so I don't see how "capitalism" can be critiqued in the way you have. The current system is broken as you allude to, but it's broken not because of the capitalist ideas but because it's a capitalism tainted with the worst parts of socialism. The two don't mix.

Because the "true capitalism" you are imagining is just the wet-dream of a pacifist fucking a business man?

Why doesn't your ideal exist? Why hasn't it ever existed? Because it's just fairy tale that has no idea what reality looks like.

Earlier in America, before the 16th and 17th amendments, the Fed, and FDR. Back when it was clocking in growth around the 10% mark.

Sure, there's a spectrum, but Hong Kong (and perhaps Singapore) would be fairly close to 'capitalism'. Hong Kong is so close, that it even has the bank notes of multiple banks in circulation, as used to be the norm.

Capitalism lacks the following, that the partially socialist economies of the West currently have:
- Central banking & fiat currency
- Regulation (under capitalism, common law is sufficient), including minimum wage laws, firing laws, employment discrimination laws, or any other form of restricting freedom of association
- High taxes and government spending (unless at war, spending by government under capitalism should be a tiny fraction of the aggregate, not hovering around 50%)
- Tariffs & protectionism generally

Post: #56

(01-05-2016 12:13 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Earlier in America, before the 16th and 17th amendments, the Fed, and FDR. Back when it was clocking in growth around the 10% mark.

So we go from the early, war torn republic that required much government intervention to hold it together, used slavery, expropriated lands (violently), sold those lands to favored Capitalists, etc.; to your "capitalistic" period (which still included many violent aspects of empire building, and graft/favoritism, btw) for a few decades; and then into your "non-capitalistic" period of today.

This is an argument that your "true capitalism" can exist for any relevant period of time? That an economy should idealize what any historian would consider a transitory phase of economic evolution?

(01-05-2016 12:13 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Sure, there's a spectrum, but Hong Kong (and perhaps Singapore) would be fairly close to 'capitalism'. Hong Kong is so close, that it even has the bank notes of multiple banks in circulation, as used to be the norm.

I have never heard this and seriously doubt its veracity. HK has the Hong Kong Dollar. Are you talking about banker's acceptances and notes like that. If so, you have been reading propaganda if your sources are saying that their existence means HK is "more capitalistic." Hint: Everyone uses bankers acceptances and short term notes.

(01-05-2016 12:13 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Capitalism lacks the following, that the partially socialist economies of the West currently have:
- Central banking & fiat currency

You seem to not actually consider what Capital values. If Central Banking and fiat currency leads to greater capital accumulation, it is only the prejudice of certain harmed interests that would abolish them; certainly not Capital.

(01-05-2016 12:13 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  - Regulation (under capitalism, common law is sufficient)

Accept when it is not. "Tragedy of the Commons" being the most accessible example.

(01-05-2016 12:13 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  - High taxes and government spending (unless at war, spending by government under capitalism should be a tiny fraction of the aggregate, not hovering around 50%)

Again, this is a prejudice of certain harmed interests, not of Capital. What leads to greater capital accumulation is favored. Not whatever moral qualms you have about forced redistribution.

------

This is the attitude of a "capitalist" without your moral qualms

(01-05-2016 12:13 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  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.

Here is a link to a book written by an American back in the 1930's regarding his discussions with German businessman.

https://mises.org/library/vampire-economy

If you want, pages 33-39 discuss the behavioral changes of capitalists under Nazism. And unlike people in this thread so concerned with "true capitalism," the author hasn't been imprinted by the "Capitalism vs. Socialism" propaganda of the Cold War. He calls them what they are, an evolved breed of "capitalist" responding to the new conditions.

Again, Capitalism IS a value system. It values whatever accumulates more capital. Some things may fail, some may succeed and it evolves.

Hypergamy doesn't care about your idealizations of females.

Capitalism doesn't care about your ideals of voluntary, free exchange.

Post: #57

Quote:Tariffs & protectionism generally

Most would consider 19th century America much more "capitalist" than it is today, and that was a period of high tariffs and protectionism.

Tariffs were the main source of revenue for the Federal government.

Post: #58

(01-05-2016 01:05 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  This is an argument that your "true capitalism" can exist for any relevant period of time? That an economy should idealize what any historian would consider a transitory phase of economic evolution?

Don't know what this gibberish means, I was just pointing out a 'very capitalist' period of history as an example.

(01-05-2016 12:13 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Sure, there's a spectrum, but Hong Kong (and perhaps Singapore) would be fairly close to 'capitalism'. Hong Kong is so close, that it even has the bank notes of multiple banks in circulation, as used to be the norm.

(01-05-2016 01:05 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  I have never heard this and seriously doubt its veracity. HK has the Hong Kong Dollar. Are you talking about banker's acceptances and notes like that. If so, you have been reading propaganda if your sources are saying that their existence means HK is "more capitalistic." Hint: Everyone uses bankers acceptances and short term notes.

Sorry bro, easy win for me on that one. If you'd take your head from the Marxian economics books and take a broader study of the world, you might have avoided that slip up.

http://banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/...KG0212.htm
http://banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/...KG0341.htm
http://banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/...KG0297.htm

(01-05-2016 12:13 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Capitalism lacks the following, that the partially socialist economies of the West currently have:
- Central banking & fiat currency

(01-05-2016 01:05 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  You seem to not actually consider what Capital values. If Central Banking and fiat currency leads to greater capital accumulation, it is only the prejudice of certain harmed interests that would abolish them; certainly not Capital.

Not sure why it is that you capitalize the word Capital, last I saw that behaviour was from the old-school Marxists. You seem to be saying that "anything favoring capital accumulation is capitalism". By this logic, the USSR was very capitalist, as the state accumulated a lot of capital (at the point of a gun).

If you want to define capitalism to mean something else, that's fine, but I won't join you in that definition. When I mean capitalism I mean free-market capitalism, and if you're arguing against other definitions or types of capitalism that's fine, but has nothing to do with me.

(01-05-2016 02:03 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Quote:Tariffs & protectionism generally

Most would consider 19th century America much more "capitalist" than it is today, and that was a period of high tariffs and protectionism.

Tariffs were the main source of revenue for the Federal government.

Yes, some forms of government intervention are more damaging that others. I'd rather live in a 50% tax country with 0 regulation, than live in 10% tax country with swathes of red tape. At least robbers give you your freedom in between robberies.

Post: #59

(01-06-2016 10:36 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Not sure why it is that you capitalize the word Capital, last I saw that behaviour was from the old-school Marxists. You seem to be saying that "anything favoring capital accumulation is capitalism". By this logic, the USSR was very capitalist, as the state accumulated a lot of capital (at the point of a gun).

If you want to define capitalism to mean something else, that's fine, but I won't join you in that definition. When I mean capitalism I mean free-market capitalism, and if you're arguing against other definitions or types of capitalism that's fine, but has nothing to do with me.

I read an interesting argument the other day, I can't remember where, I don't think it was here, that essentially capitalism ultimately may result in socialism, as the state apparatus ultimately becomes a logical acquisition for the few corporate entities that rise to the top of a capitalist system. At that point all forces of production are, in a sense, concentrated in the hands of the state, even if the state itself is in the hands of corporations.

I am not advancing this argument as my own or 'true', just interesting.

Post: #60

@ Phoenix

Let’s clear something up.

These posts are not saying Capitalism is bad or any other system should be preferred, they are simply elucidating realities about Capitalism lost on a modern Westerner after decades of Cold War “us vs. them” propaganda. They are not meant to sway your opinion of capitalism or socialism or communism or fascism (as you alluded to, I do believe they are different expressions of the same drive to accumulate capital/power. The man who believes he can “pull himself up by the bootstraps” wants private property, the man who doesn’t or has failed wants another way. And the man who already has it, wants to protect it from loss and gain more however he can. In sum, once our brains could contemplate the future, plan, and allocate; it all became Capitalism. We can complain about the parts we don’t like, but that doesn’t help to understand or master those parts). As analogy, when manosphere people talk with AFC’s about hypergamy, they are usually met with overt hostility and denial. Why? Because to believe differently challenges deeply held beliefs.

I understand you “want” Capitalism to mean “free-market capitalism” and don’t want to discuss how "non free-market capitalism" actually operates, but only your idealized version. This strikes me as very similar to the AFC who just wants “Love” to be that thing he sees in the movie. He doesn’t want to contemplate the inner-working, dirty, and disappointing aspects of what relationships and females entail. Those who only speak about “True Capitalism” want desperately for real world “Capitalism” to be that thing they read about from Ayn Rand or Mises. But is it?

What happens when we do hold the Disney-version of “Love” up as our ideal and expectation of reality? Doesn’t if fail precisely because women and men are not like these portrayals, because “love” is portrayed as desiring those qualities the good princess should desire; when, in reality, what your AFC calls “love” is often just a strange combination of impulse, hypergamy, and delusion. Thus the AFC cannot understand what happened or why.

Likewise, what would it mean if you are holding up an idealized version of Capitalism you read about, but fails to exist precisely because it portrays humans as something other than they are (free, rational, and non-aggressive), and because it portrays “Capital” as desirous of the things this ideal capitalist should desire (freedom, voluntary action, peaceful exchange); when, in reality, Capital only seeks to accumulate more capital. Thus the “True Capitalist” cannot understand what happened or why.

Again, I understand what you mean by Capitalism as only “free market capitalism.” But consider that this sounds like someone saying “Love and Relationships” as only that thing the romantics describe in their stories. The manosphere owes its existence to rejecting that definition of “Love and Relationships” and attempting to find what is really going on.

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

“If you want to define capitalism to mean something else, that's fine, but I won't join you in that definition.”

I would appreciate it if you clarify if this is still the case.

Post: #61

(01-05-2016 02:03 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Quote:Tariffs & protectionism generally

Most would consider 19th century America much more "capitalist" than it is today, and that was a period of high tariffs and protectionism.

Tariffs were the main source of revenue for the Federal government.

Correct, then the income tax arrived in ~1913...and the rest is history.

Post: #62

Glad to See this thread has sparked discussion, could not respond earlier.

Saying I am a Marxist does not make sense. I am criticizing them and saying things which no Marxist has ever said. I am only saying that the capitalist elite nowadays funds degeneracy in the West. From what I read here, maybe I should not have used the word capitalism, but I did because to me it made the most sense, because these guys are Capitalists and are on the top.

I think capitalism can be blamed to a vertiam degree got the degeneracy we have. Capitalists want money, better consumers will give them money, theodore they try to create a better consumer. To do that, they finance social marxist ideals such as multiculturalism, feminism, gay rights, nihilistic atheism and effiminacy in men( just for a few examples). These vales attack all moral pillars successful societies have had for years: it attacks traditional sex roles, creating masculine women, destroying the national pride and culture, creating weak and feminine men, destroying religion and spirituality, destroying the nuclear family, etc. These things will mess up society even more than millenials are messed up, they will grow up in broken homes, with a libertine society that tells them to satisfy their every urge and that there are no consequences. These people will have lots of holes to fill, and they will fill it with consuming as much as they can. Lo and behold, a generation of good consumers is born.

It may be a a coincidence that things on the Social Marxist agenda will benefit the economic elite, But since We know a lot of corporations openly support these ideals, i think coincidence is rather unlikely. These people know very well what they are doing.

Also, many leftists are the most vigorous consumists, they criticize capitalism but embrace all of its bemefits, hence the term Caviar Left. I have seen this as true, specially in middle class millenials, they are very vocal against capitalism, but are very good and vain consumers. They are idiots, being usefull.

@GlobalMan thanks! Will send you a PM. I am actually reading the anti capitalist mentality by Mises.

Post: #63

I agree with Phoenix and Globalman. We do not live in a capitalist society, but in a society with a capitalist facade.

The system is fucked up because:
- our governments allow banks to create the entire money supply as debt out of thin air while the people are forced to pay it back with time and labour.
- our governments purposefully go into debt so the people are forced to pay more interest, disguised as income tax, to the banks.
- our governments allow artificial manipulation of the money supply and price level.
- small and medium companies are taxed to death while very large companies are exempt of any taxes.

Basically, the government does everything in its ability to stop people from moving up in society through smart/hard work while stealing as much money as possible (taxes) from the middle class to redistribute it to the super rich.

Post: #64

We don't have anything close to "capitalism". It is heavily restricted and regulated by the governments of each perspective nation with a few exceptions. The US for instance is a quasi socialist system.

There is no "free market" There are ALOT of limits on what you can and can't do, hence we don't have anything close to unfettered capitalism, and I don't know if we ever have, even after the turn of the 19th century.

Post: #65

Capitalism is an economic system in which privately-owned (and industrialized) production predominates. That's what there is in the US, hence the US possesses a capitalist economy. Trying to say the US isn't "really capitalist" reminds me of socialists who try to convince everyone that the USSR wasn't "really socialist"...it's nitpicking that misses the main point.

Another important issue is that it's possible to be anti-capitalist or skeptical of capitalism from the right. In many ways it's easier. When you really get down to it, Marx and Engels praised capitalism constantly and based their entire worldview on the idea that capitalism would propel humanity to their imagined classless paradise, whereas someone like Burke did no such thing. And it's easy to see why conservatism would take such a dim view of the system: capitalism has been the primary engine by which western civilization has been diluted, degraded and debased; capitalism is the friend of the usurer and the swindler, the ally of amorality, the relentless seeker of the lowest common denominator. Advertising and marketing specialize in exhorting people to become worse versions of themselves, to define themselves by petty possessions, to forego the ways of their ancestors in favor of gadgets and glowing screens. Whatever is profitable is pursued; whatever is virtuous, scorned.

That said, there's also no denying that capitalism is the most effective generator of wealth and technological improvement, so however toxic it is towards culture, it remains an indispensable economic engine. Businesses competing to serve their private interests is a highly creative process, and any society that does away with this will find itself losing a great deal along with it.

So yes, capitalism may well be part of the problem of modernity...but it will have to be part of any solution. Capitalism, on its own, destroys everything except itself; capitalism balanced by civil society and moderated by wise rulers, however, can bring about a society that is both materially prosperous and internally content.

Post: #66

I find it difficult to believe when I see large corporations shooting themselves in the foot with SJW advertising campaigns. Some of it may be marketing copying the competition assuming the other guy knows something he doesn't but most of it is flat out obnoxious.

Profit is secondary to many of these companies. Take the movie industry for example, movies with black leads sell poorly in Asia to the point excellent sales elsewhere could not make up for the lost revenue. The industry isn't blind to this either as you can see from the adjusted advertisements used in Asian markets.