/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>88936
Humans are smart, we can trash and game anything. To me, capitalism is a tool like knife. You can use it constructively or destructively. I don't think any system can, by it's nature, force bad people to be good. I have always thought that the role of government was to be like parents that stop the children when they stray beyond reasonable boundaries. NatSoc is this concept. The problem as always, though, is the bad people continuously infiltrate where there is power.

There are no external political/economic systems that stop bad people being bad people. But we keep looking for it anyway … ↻

maybe anyone seeking power positions should be tested for sociopathy/psychopathy??

>>88936
>What do you think about capitalism?
I like it. Capitalism has rapidly made the world as it is today. I like the world of today vs. being a serf dying of the flu at 35.
>Is it broken?
No. It could use some tweaks though.
>Does it need to be fixed?
We need to get rid of crony capitalism, so in a way yes. Also, some draconian socialist laws should probably either be reformed or tossed out.

My real worry is capitalism leading to post-labor economics (i.e. robots). Post-labor economics is going to be a shitshow.

>>88936
The market fixes everything. Trust me goy.

>>88936
>I am very skeptical on the "the market will fix it" talk.
The market usually does fix itself. The problem is that when resources are being reallocated from failed assets (an economic depression), people suffer. Shorting or mitigating the effects of a capital reallocation period has been what economists have been trying to figure out since the discovery of the business cycle.

>>88943
>The market fixes everything. Trust me goy.
At least the markets fix stuff better than the government.
https://archive.is/zDC2l

>>88941
Interesting point. But we somehow need to asses in what way we currently use it and if how to change it when its use is more destructive than productive.

>maybe anyone seeking power positions should be tested for sociopathy/psychopathy??
Here is a problem. Many of those people that do harm do it not out of the need to fuck shit up but out of ideological reason are the will to be looked up to or whater.

> I don't think any system can, by it's nature, force bad people to be good.
Sometimes I think that the opposide may ne in fact possible.

>>88942

>I like it. Capitalism has rapidly made the world as it is today. I like the world of today vs. being a serf dying of the flu at 35.
I can't deny that the world has rapidly evolved grown with the current system.
But there is the question if that was only due the cap-system or due to other circumstances (easily obtained resources and energy).
Imagine if the reds had put their effort into improving instead of hunting down everyone that performs well.

>My real worry is capitalism leading to post-labor economics (i.e. robots). Post-labor economics is going to be a shitshow.
Maybe, maybe not. I watched some video of a rat colony that died out because they had everything they needed and paradise made them weak and they even lost the ability to reproduce.
On a different note I always find it amusing when they say "we need more skilled skilled workers" from other countries and talk about job killing through robots 5 mins later and fail to make any connection

>>88944
maybe so but money and growth as the only gauge has resulted in many broken things
the magic hand of the market need magic to work in many cases

Technology is an amplifier of the feeble power humans have. When applied to labor (automation) you eventually have:

1) more productivity than needed
2) less need to employ people

Eventually you could have a whole society where the machines produce goods and service themselves. The need to keep everyone employed becomes harder and harder to sustain. At some point we would need to move past everyone working 9 to 5 for 50 years and instead enjoy lower work hours and more free time. The economic system needs to adjust and cater for this.

In the current arrangement when points 1 and 2 happen we economically destabilise then go to war and destroy capacity, leading to a rebuilding boom. And at the same time a baby boom. I suggest that technology destabilises our backward economic system because it becomes more efficient than "full employment" expectation can handle.

Baby boom -> Intellect boom -> Technology boom -> destabilisation -> World War -> New boom built on the ashes.

>>88954
>Baby boom -> Intellect boom -> Technology boom -> destabilisation -> World War -> New boom built on the ashes.
Sounds almost like religious teaching and that we are trapped in this cicle.

I am no expert but there are different models that could work. They are not in the mainstream though.
Maybe it is because of the default effect or there are enough people feeling like they are in a good enough economic spot.
Maybe it is because of (((them))).

Is trying to enjoy the ride and prep the only thing there is?

Before I delve into why capitalism, is good, let me make one thing clear:

Our current system is NOT free-market economics.

The West currently lives under a crony-capitalist society. There is generally decent economic freedom (in that you can establish your own business and decide what to do with it), but the government's role has gradually corrupted and eroded the virtues of capitalism. The same (((people))) who have infiltrated the government for that sweet sweet tax revenue also control the captains of industry. Trillions have been lavished on contractors, the banking system is controlled by a cartel, companies are "too big to fail," and media giants do governments' work of censorship to get past free speech laws. Like a tree rotting from within it will collapse eventually, but to prop up their system the globalists are enacting socialistic policies and hunting for taxes everywhere.

Let me explain why capitalism is good as succinctly as possible. For a decent grasp of economics I recommend reading the works of Adam Smith, Bastiat, von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and Hoppe. To get started though "Economics in One Simple Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt is enough. Ignorance in economics these days is inexcusable.

Every person has individual needs and desires and will pursue these. Some call it "greed" but it is simply self-improvement, as who can be called greedy for wanting better housing, income, healthcare, etc. for himself and for his descendants? As independent economic actors people will go their own paths, develop their talents, and engage in consensual contracts with others as assistance.

Some call this system unjust and a "jungle," but it is inherently unjust to restrict a person's potential to match the collective's. Free-market capitalism is naturally beneficial for society as a whole as it promotes natural selection: without governmental intervention, those with a superior culture and work ethic generate more wealth and enjoy greater success.

Some complain about the "idle rich" but they are definitely the minority; the majority of millionaires in Western societies attained that status themselves, and usually within three generations a family spends away most of its excess wealth due to complacency. Also, money is usually invested, whereby it helps a company or entrepreneur field capital for a new project.

Most people skeptical of capitalism bring up the "poverty" argument. Welfare is, however, a negative force on a community as it generally fosters laziness and lack of social cohesion while taking away from the industry of others. With a rise in incomes brought about through the free market people are also more generous and will give freely to charities.

Socialism is a drug in that it produces a "high" of "justice" (though there is nothing just in stealing from a rich man to give to a poor man) but, like hard drugs, is utterly destructive. Marxism is the worst as it treats millions of individuals, each with individual talents and aspirations, as uniform machines to be subjugated and controlled. "Conservative" or national socialism at least has the excuse of fighting an external or internal threat, and it is quite successful in the short term as well, but will also suffer from diminished economic growth as it distracts from free innovation.

Again, I'm not very good at explaining topics such as this, but capitalism really is the natural order. Without an artificial entity to control there can be no (((enslavement))), and one must rise or fall on his own merits.

Capitalism has aided human progress drastically but I do not think it should be our end game.

I am a libertarian socialist; I believe that artificial hierarchies like the state and capitalism should be inspected, challenged, and if they cannot justify themselves, should be abolished and replaced with voluntary, horizontal free associations instead. I won't go into why I believe this but keep in mind where my perspective comes from.

My criticisms of capitalism come primarily from Das Kapital by Karl Marx (inb4 autistic screeching) albeit they're also influenced by Mikhail Bakunin, Joseph-Pierre Proudhon, and from Max Stirner's The Unique and Its Property.

Capitalism has been great for our societal progress however I can think of some improvements we can make while still keeping the already positive aspects (in the eyes of right-libertarians). Simply put I believe that the means of production should be managed collectively by the workers instead of by a centralized authority. Instead of an idea being decided upon by a boss, workers would have a direct influence on what they manufacture, how they manufacture, how they distribute wages, their working conditions, their hours, what to automate, and who to employ and who to fire. As a result, the success of the company in the free marketplace would be the responsibility of the proletarians, not the bourgeoisie; creativity would be encouraged instead of repressed as a result.

This simultaneously would make the marketplace easier to access because there'd be less wealth disparity. Every time we've seen laissez-faire economics with a boss-worker hierarchy, it has resulted in massive wealth disparities. Workers could hardly afford food and water and housing whereas the market would be mainly only available to the bourgeois. By removing this hierarchy, wages could be fairer because the boss wouldn't have to pay the worker less money than they make him for the sake of surplus value, and as a result these major wealth disparities would not occur. In other words, horizontal workplace organization would be more in line with free markets than capitalism.

How should we attain this, though? Should we use the state? Absolutely not. Every single time socialism has been attempted through statist means has resulted in totalitarian governments and mass starvation. This is primarily because the agricultural workers do not like their property stolen from them. This has to be a cultural effort. In order to establish this, we should encourage collective workplace organization through non-violent means, through books and public speaking. The will of the culture is what really creates change, not the will of the state.

>>88956
This seems a reasonable description but is not government simply the successful cartel that emerges naturally? A Mafia who makes the rules by the power it naturally amassed? And the collapse of that is also the harmfulness to society that we are trying to avoid?

Do you suggest that the emerging ruling clan should not happen? And which authority would stop said clan??

An economy no longer based on labor is an economy based on management. Just as the workers are stakeholders, what comes after will remain stakeholders. I predict that the importance of stock and ownership will become much more vital to the new economy. If it will ever happen, hundreds of years from now likely. Think of how a videogame works like Sid Meir's Civilization or any other real time or turn based strategy game works; you never do any labor, but you manage others to do it for you. Workers are now a soulless unit of production, but production still remains. What can also remain is property, thus does trade, and so competition. Even for those unable to compete due to lack of property, is it possible their situation can improve with preferred stock (as given by perhaps government or charity), can then eventually create their own company or perhaps continually subsist on their share of profits. Currency is maintained of course, however the role of those who control the currency (banks per say/government) will be elevated.
Another factor is with automated work, there is the issue of overproduction. This will either create scarcity or a post-scarcity. If with the latter, then does the managerial maintain itself as planned and prices fall drastically low, but not as a problem(?) But, with the former, then does this become the basis in which prices are set and where we see the role of government. For example, the government sets regulations in so that depletion doesn't result in chaos and destruction. If so, then will just see the end of the automated era and a new age of darkness.
Those are my theories. They might be complete shit or riddled with inaccuracies, but it's outside what we think of what usually will be a communist automation scenario. Nonetheless, I don't think automation is that much of an immediate issue as there isn't a fixed labor amount, and with every innovation comes the creation of new jobs (though disproportional at times) and with every dollar saved can more money be spent in turn creating jobs in other sectors. I'd like to point out farming labor for example, the reliance on cheap, often illegal labor is cited as a point against restricted immigration, but at the same time foreign labor lowers the incentive for technological investment (like automated fruit pickers or something) which would lower prices anyways. And, we later pay those costs for illegals in different ways nonetheless. Automation is can be a dual edged sword, but I could be wrong & it could fuck us up despite the benefits. In which, unions I guess.

>>88956
I have read a few books and articles on the topic but just beginner trash on business administration and macroeconomics.

While you make a lot of fair points I think that you build an ideal capitalistic world that is fantasy or incomplete theory.
A system that creates social darwinism? I really doubt that this is something that is needed, nature handles shit by itself.
There are too many psychological and other effects. Improvement through competition has its limits and it is no longer the best product that is sold most but the one that deiceives the most.

My view of unleashed capitalism is the thing that seperates me from an-caps.

>>88957
There is some factory in Spain or somewhere where the workers are the shareholders, there are some experiments with bottom-up managment. Interesting stuff.

I think it's an okay system, but a system based on greed is always corruptible, and many aspects of capitalist society are corrupted. A nation based on the goal of improving the nation would work better, of course (((they))) can never allow that

>>88955
Everything is a God damn cycle. Humans are forgetful, so we keep doing the same shit over and over again.
>Is trying to enjoy the ride and prep the only thing there is?
Yep.
>>88956
>Socialism is a drug in that it produces a "high" of "justice" (though there is nothing just in stealing from a rich man to give to a poor man) but, like hard drugs, is utterly destructive.
Interesting what has become the opiate of the masses, isn't it?
>>88957
>the means of production should be managed collectively by the workers instead of by a centralized authority
The problem is that there will always be an authority to make decisions. There might be a time where there is chaos, of production, but eventually, an order will eventually arise in the means of production. That's why communism always fails, and true anarchy will never reign. The spontaneous order will occur to organize the chaos. The order will have a hierarchy, and the hierarchy will lead to inequality.

>>88957
>True communism hasn't been tried.

The real problem is humans are predators. We prey on animals and plants and ourselves. Capitalism turns our predatory instinct into an asset rather than a dystopia. A system that assumes humans are selfless and egalitarianism fails because humans do not/can not reach that status.

The Left expects utopian fantasy, the Right understands the pragmatic harshness of reality.

The Left gains when the wealth exists (baby boom etc etc), the Right exists when the Left has squandered it.

>>88960
>There is some factory in Spain or somewhere where the workers are the shareholders, there are some experiments with bottom-up managment. Interesting stuff.
There is also an employee-owned grocery chain called Woodman's. An interesting thing about these stores? There is still a managing labor force and a lower ranked labor force like most stores.

>>88958
An important distinction should be made between a market cartel, which seeks control through cooperation across an industry, and a ruling cartel, which enforces its reign at the point of a gun. Market cartels ALWAYS fail, as long as it is not government-supported, since eventually trust erodes and the partners will undercut each other. A Mafia by definition is an illegal organization as it operates through coercion. That's not to say crime (and organized crime) wouldn't exist in Ancapistan, but a government has to be backed by the people to be tenable. Currently people are blue-pilled enough to let the government force them to pay it money as well as force others to do so. If it becomes the social norm, however, that private property is sacrosanct no one would tolerate such aggression. Private securities and militias would put anyone who tries in a helicopter.

As for a ruling clan, I think that no one should take from others by force. I have no objection to a popular social figure who has earned respect and influence among society (for example, the dethroned yet highly popular Habsburgs of Austria).

While your concerns are justified, more worrisome is the constant governmental "power creep" across the world that looks to centralize control and shut us down. It is definitely in our best interest to hack at the most wicked branches of government until only a stump is left.

>>88957
So essentially you're just an anarcho-syndicalist with a camouflaged name. Get in the chopper.

>>88960
Capitalism doesn't "create" social darwinism, it simply lets nature run its course. It is self-evident both logically and empirically. More often than not the most successful members of society, when not given preference by government, have risen to such status by talent, hard work, and creativity. The industrialized West dominated the rest of the world in the 19th century because its free markets allowed for individual developments that made these societies stronger.

>>88956
Some complain about the "idle rich" but they are definitely the minority; the majority of millionaires in Western societies attained that status themselves, and usually within three generations a family spends away most of its excess wealth due to complacency. Also, money is usually invested, whereby it helps a company or entrepreneur field capital for a new project.

Well as far as I can judge there are roughly two groups.
There are persons who basically got lucky after a crisis or a technology change and built an empire and there are families, money-aristocrats, that just manage their fortune over many many generations.
Also the economic state of a childs familiy is the prime indicator of success in life.

>lso, money is usually invested, whereby it helps a company or entrepreneur field capital for a new project.
Sadly mostly just into money managing money. The "real" economy seems become less and less important.

>>88964
>Capitalism turns our predatory instinct into an asset rather than a dystopia
I have doubts about this.

>>88963
I don't know if I am willing to just give in into that nihilistic way of thinking.
If that is so than why not work with (((them)))? Maybe you can be top goy or atleast we can get over the boom to the next phase.

>>88959
Post-scarcity is a fucking scary thing anon. With all labor done by robots, no labor will be done by the human labor class. With no labor done by the human labor class, the human labor class will not have any opportunity. With no opportunity, there will be no way to move up in life, or even provide for themselves. The only ones that will have are those that own the means of production. If the Government is not complicit in keeping the wealthy protected, and tries to institute socialism they will get crushed. Why? If everything is automated, it can be assumed that at the time robot armies are a thing. The wealthy will sit in palaces getting fat. They will be protected by a robot army, while the obsolete working class slowly dies off from starvation.

>>88967
>If that is so than why not work with (((them)))? Maybe you can be top goy or atleast we can get over the boom to the next phase.
That'd be fun, admittedly. However, I am convinced that there is a better way. What that better way is I don't know yet, but I am certain it exists.

>>88966
>The industrialized West dominated the rest of the world in the 19th century because its free markets allowed for individual developments that made these societies stronger.
I highly doubt the part about individual developments. Atleast not for the vast majority of the population.

I have a couple of, perhaps related, questions:

1) Has anyone thought about starting a business and then just realised the red tape is just too much then didn't?

2) What is more important, the individual or society?

>>88957
I am compelled to reply to this more succinctly.

You can't put a economic system for angels in hell and have it work.

>>88972
>Has anyone thought about starting a business and then just realised the red tape is just too much then didn't?
Yes.
>What is more important, the individual or society?
Both. The individual is the most precious thing you have. However, society is also important, as it allows for the individual to prosper.

>>88972
> Has anyone thought about starting a business and then just realised the red tape is just too much then didn't?
Not seriously, no.

>>88972
>What is more important, the individual or society?
This is difficult to answer.
The individual needs the society. But any society that gives no fuck about the individual is hardly worth existing.
I am leaning more towards the individual.

>>88974
The more laws you have, the more ways you have to oppress the non-crony upstarts. Governments should be limited in the amount of laws and past a certain point each law added needs one removed. The size should be such that is is reasonable for the public to read them all.

Smart answer. Balance is often right.

>>88972
>Has anyone thought about starting a business and then just realized the red tape is just too much then didn't?
Still mulling over that one, but I'd always gravitate towards a region/country that has less regulation. It's why Apple has its European headquarters in Ireland and why Singapore is a bustling hub of an island.

>What is more important, the individual or society?
What is a society but a collection of individuals? A society enables the individual to function with greater efficiency as well as provides intangible rewards. However, society cannot infringe on the rights of individuals or it risks becoming invalid.

>>88967
>Sadly mostly just into money managing money. The "real" economy seems become less and less important.
You can thank expansionary monetary policy for that.

>I have doubts about this.
This instinct isn't going away regardless. Suppose you have a group project in school where everyone shares the grade equally. The lowest grade-earners will be tempted to rely on the better-performing students to carry them through. Likewise, being relied upon to do all the work will instill resentment into the better students, who will no longer want to work hard. The average grade plummets. Meanwhile, if there were individual projects students would work harder to get the top place.

>If that is so than why not work with (((them)))? Maybe you can be top goy or at least we can get over the boom to the next phase.

I in no way envy the "top goys." They live shallow, unfulfilled lives with the knowledge it can all crumble down if they say the wrong thing. I'd rather be an honest slave than live a lie as a king. Morals also come into this; just because I'm an AnCap doesn't make me a materialist.

>>88968
Labor does not lose value, only change its priorities. Physical strength used to be the key aspect of success, outside of birth. People-skills and creativity, things which AI still struggle with, would remain valuable. Beyond that, we're getting ahead of ourselves.

>>88970
It's always a talented minority that drives change and growth.

>>88976
I have a question to return to you. What is your view on social programs? It a point on which classical liberals and social liberals (a point which Sargoy of Cuckkad himself admits) differ.

Sorry, my ID changed; I was on my phone; I'm on my computer now.

>>88964
>>True communism hasn't been tried.

I never said that? I never even mentioned communism. Where's this coming from?

>The real problem is humans are predators. We prey on animals and plants and ourselves. Capitalism turns our predatory instinct into an asset rather than a dystopia. A system that assumes humans are selfless and egalitarianism fails because humans do not/can not reach that status.

Hey, that's pretty spooky. Cooperative efforts can be for self-gain. Self-gain can be attained by collective competition, individual competition, or collective cooperation. Selfishness would still exist in market socialism, but it would be expressed in different ways that would be more beneficial to society than the ways it expresses itself in the boss-worker relationship. In capitalism, individuals compete with each other. In market socialism, collectives compete with each other instead.

TL;DR: the framework of the market would still be there and there would still be selfish action, it would just be conducted in more societally beneficial ways.

>The Left expects utopian fantasy, the Right understands the pragmatic harshness of reality.
>The Left gains when the wealth exists (baby boom etc etc), the Right exists when the Left has squandered it.


I never said anything utopic; I said we could improve our relations of production. Also, nice baseless character judgments. I'm just going to tell you to fuck off with your identity politics, though, so fuck off with your id-pol. The left and right aren't monoliths; they're borderline meaningless categories besides maybe one side is pro-equality and the other is pro-hierarchy.

>>88966
>So essentially you're just an anarcho-syndicalist with a camouflaged name. Get in the chopper.

No, I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist. In fact, I think syndicalism is too hierarchical for me and depends on representative "democracy", which I abhor as a mockery of actual democracy.

>>88963
>The problem is that there will always be an authority to make decisions.

I am not opposed to authority; I'm opposed to unjustified hierarchy. In a crisis, if vertical association is absolutely necessary, it could be temporarily established and then dissolved afterward and replaced with horizontal organizations once more. For this to happen though, the authority has to be voluntary.

My attitude though is that if an authority needs to justify itself through violence, it's not justified whatsoever, therefore the state is invalid.

>There might be a time where there is chaos, of production, but eventually, an order will eventually arise in the means of production.

Horizontal organization is not chaos; it's the opposite. You're talking about disorganization.

>That's why communism always fails
>true anarchy will never reign

This is off-topic.

>The spontaneous order will occur to organize the chaos.

There would already be order. Chaos would be very unlikely because of the culture's attitudes about voluntary authority.

>>88972
>1
I don't really have the mindset to start a business. I lack both the motivation and the interest, and the skills necessary to make something like that grow. It really takes a certain kind of person to start a business. It's not enough to just be interested in creating a certain type of product or service, you have to be able to recognize and evaluate demand, and be able to market your product. You're also responsible for ensuring the entire enterprise is running smoothly, even the facets of it that are not quite in your field of interest or expertise. While the independence of being a business owner is appealing, the truth is I'm just not cut out for it. When it all boils down I'd rather just find a job that I don't hate, get a steady paycheck and not have to worry about anything other than getting my work done.

>2
In order to understand this principle is you have to realize that society is a collection of individuals. There's no real division between the interests of "the individual" and the interests of "society". In order for a society to function, the individuals living within it need to be happy and interested in participating. While an individual doesn't necessarily need to be part of a society in order to be happy, the vast majority of people prefer to live in communities where they feel connected. Society also allows for division of labor so people don't have to take care of every aspect of their own lives; most of us don't generate our own electricity or grow our own food (not to say that it wouldn't be useful to know how to do that). Individuals are happiest when they are given enough freedom to pursue their own happiness and keep the products of their own labor. However, if you let this principle progress too far you end up in a feudal state. The ideal society is one where people have a common set of beliefs and a sense of connection to each other, so they are less inclined to exploit one another, and a government that is willing to occasionally break up large monopolies and protect the community from outside invaders, but otherwise stay out of the lives of citizens unless there's some plausible reason to intervene.

>>88979
Huh, interesting that we have someone with more of a centrist political philosophy here. Not saying that's bad, but you must be new here. Were you referred here from Youtube, by any chance?

>Cooperative efforts can be for self-gain.
Yeah, we already have those. They're called corporations. Some are a bit more hierarchical than others, but that's how the world works. You can even have a non-profit organization where the greedy manager can't grab the earnings. Companies are collectivist in structure (generally), compete with each other, and are voluntary (you enter or leave by contract).

>>88978
>It's always a talented minority that drives change and growth.
And most of them benefited from high social status or support. If you have to slave away it is very unlikely that you can acquire the time and ressources to progress in whatever field you choose.

>>88978
>What is your view on social programs?
This is a little vague. Which social programs? I would say generally they range from valid (old age pension) to invalid (workers who don't work). I think that the circumstances should change according to the affordability. A rich society can have more leeches, a poor society can't. Make it obvious that any money is temporary and might be stopped at any time. This security/insecurity might provide a good balance of effects.

I think that ultimately pensions are communism. They embolden people to not have children, and to not work and save for old age. At the same time some people will have no opportunity to prepare for old age. A rich society should still offer minimal care if it is needed.

>>88982
>Huh, interesting that we have someone with more of a centrist political philosophy here. Not saying that's bad, but you must be new here. Were you referred here from Youtube, by any chance?

No, I've been here since the start. I came from 4/mlpol/. And my views aren't centrist; I'm an anarchist.

>Yeah, we already have those. They're called corporations.

By cooperative efforts for self-gain, I mean an effort led by a cooperative, like a worker's union, not by a boss. Individual competition is competition between bosses and competition between individuals.

>You can even have a non-profit organization where the greedy manager can't grab the earnings.

Only if it's socialist. Otherwise, the manager grabs the earnings from the workers (Proudhon: What is Property?)

>are voluntary

By working for a boss, you are basically selling your labor to him, but you are not independent from your labor; you are your labor. So, in essence, you're selling yourself; you're a slave. Furthermore, in order to survive, you must sell yourself to a boss, who decides upon your working conditions, upon your wages, upon your hours, and you have little control over it; the notion that you have control over your workplace by choosing your employer is very indirect control. In other words, the majority of your control is an illusion.

Socialism would give you more control over your workplace and would remove this slavery aspect. Instead, it would be cooperative effort toward feeding each other, instead of effort to benefit a central "authority" while only getting bread crumbs in return.

>Companies are collectivist in structure

Not really. Only if they're collectively managed. Otherwise, they're there to primarily benefit one individual (the employer), not the workers.

>>88982
>Huh, interesting that we have someone with more of a centrist political philosophy here
Not him but different opinions are what makes any discussion worthwhile

>>88985
The slavery is somewhat voluntary. You can start your own business and be your own boss. Most people want the easy answer and to be told what to do. Most people are followers.

>>88985
The Purple Scare IS REAL!!

>>88987
You can be a boss but by doing so you must enslave others, so either you must be a slave or a slave owner. This is not a very good system in my opinion for this very reason.

>Most people want the easy answer and to be told what to do. Most people are followers.

Because they've been brainwashed to be followers through the education system and media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50ZebmQq51Q

>>88978
>Labor does not lose value, only change its priorities. Physical strength used to be the key aspect of success, outside of birth. People-skills and creativity, things which AI still struggle with, would remain valuable. Beyond that, we're getting ahead of ourselves.
Soon labor WILL be worthless. We already have robots that write the news, create music, diagnose diseases, and sort legal papers. It will soon get to the point where it is detrimental for a human to complete a task, as a robot can do it better. There is a reason for the mass unemployment right now. Depending on how bad the next world war is, we could see post-labor become a reality this century.

>>88979
>>88985
>>88990
You have an odd choice of boards to browse, not that I am complaining. The diversity of opinion is welcome.

>>88991
>Leaders of the industrial and scientific communities argue that, to offset the social costs created by automation’s displacement effects, either robots should pay income tax, or their owners should pay a tax for replacing a worker with a robot. And this "robot tax" should be used to finance a universal basic income or guaranteed living wage.[1] Bill Gates said the solution to the problem is simple, the government should start taxing robots i.e. make the robot owners cough up the money needed to re-establish the defunct workforce. But EU Commissioner Andrus Ansip, tasked with bringing Europe to the digital age, says no. He explained that a robot tax would only mean someone else would take the leading position and leave Europe behind.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_tax

Robot tax + UBI = future??

This discussion about corporate-"slavery" and gibmedats is interesting too.

>>88995
It is true that we are corporate "slaves" but that misattributes the "problem". We are "slaves" to the effort needed to survive.

How sad we have to sit at a desk using a computer rather than till a field.

>>88997
This is true, but I am of the attitude that we should be owned by as little as possible. Capitalism is structured in such a way that we are not just owned by our need to survive but owned by our bosses.

Capitalism is a system dependent on unchecked growth - regardless of the cost to the host body (including death).

In other words, capitalism is the economic equivalent of cancer.

Whether cancer is "good" depends on whether one is the cancer (i.e., the wealthy) or the host (the rest of the world).

>>89171
I agree tho.

>>89171
This is true but the fault here is not capitalism. The banking system is structured such that debt continuously destroys society periodically. Capitalism is like vitamins and debt is like heroin. It is stated in The Greatest Story Never Told that Hitler tossed out the international banks, ended interest and paid people in money backed by land. (I do not know if this is true.) Such a system frees us from leeches.

Debt Capitalism is a problem, but the solution is not a form of communism. Here is what happens in the proposed utopia >>89060 → at any form of scale you'll get more leeches than producers. And logic will favour not producing.

>>89171
Context of pic please. I find it incredible that's an actual tumor.

>>89174
This. Going back to the health analogy, a small amount of debt, like fat or any vitamin or mineral of our body, is necessary for a healthy economy as it helps investment in growth opportunities. What the international banking cartel has done is create such a monumental amount of debt (much of it owed by sovereign governments and which is useless) that, like a landwhale or fast-burning star, it will eventually collapse in upon itself.

It's a matter of when, not if, and MA offers the best forecast available. Such a crisis that must default even the most reliable governments and investment banks will possibly be worse than the Great Depression. We don't know what (((their))) plans are, but they will likely involve using it as an excuse to enforce population control and establish a tyrannical socialist state. The only thing we can do is inform as many people as we can (reasonably, of course, so we don't get dismissed as conspiracy nuts or political extremists) so when the time comes they are ready and willing to fight for what's right.

>>89171
>compares Capitalism, an economic system that operates best in scenarios of unrestrained growth and success, to cancer, a malignant growth that only harms the host body.
>"therefore Capitalism is Cancer"

Nigger can you even into logic? This is the worst anti-capitalist argument I've ever seen, and that's saying something.

Communists say true communism has never been tried because true capitalism has never been tried. We have never had a period in history where the world's economy was not entirely or mostly dominated or controlled by Kings, Governments, Jews, "The 1%", lobbyists bought by corrupt bloated Jew-owned megacorps, or the Deep State. We have never lived under true Capitalism, where one man's hard work can be rewarded fairly without cronyism or nepotism or leftism getting in the way.

>>89178
>Context of pic please. I find it incredible that's an actual tumor
Search for "retroperitoneal tumor," you'll find that pic and many others.

Alternative snark: "Search for 'Goldman Sachs.'"

>>89182
>where one man's hard work can be rewarded fairly

I think you're referring to market socialism. Capitalism is inherently exploitative. The boss must always pay the worker less than their work is worth on the market in order to squeeze out surplus value to make a profit.

If you have doubts about capitalism, I recommend watching this video on why capitalism is good, explained by a gypsy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmqoHk3m0n8

>>89317
That was actually a pretty good video. It even helped to structure some of my own arguments.

>>88936
I like it. It's the system that I want to live in.
Just because in current world there are many things that are bad it isn't capitalism fault. It's fault of the people. You can take any system and turn it into something great. And you can do complete opposite, take somethign that looks good on paper and run it into ground because there is no ideal system. I would even argue that there are no better or worse systems, it only depends on how do you apply it and what is current situation.
There are many problems like few people accumulating gigantic capital, or money having control over politics but it's not like changing into socialism or anythign else would magically make all problems disappear.
I agree that at some point capitalism would stop working. At some point each thing would stop working. If we reach the point where automation allows us to produce so much and so cheap that we can just make poverty dissaper why shouldn't we? Yeah it can turn people into lazy fatties but it's not like we can stop such thing unless we reverse our progress. But it's in the future and right now I strongly prefer capitalism.

>>89323
>If we reach the point where automation allows us to produce so much and so cheap that we can just make poverty dissaper why shouldn't we?

We already do that. We have enough food to end starvation ten times over and enough housing to end homelessness four times over in the United States alone.

>>89335
This is incredibly true. Where I lived the issue was transporting said food to all those whom were hungry. Because the feds, staters, and locals couldn't tax homeless kitchens or shelters, they simply shut them down.

>>89405
>>89335
Basic survival such as food and shelter is a non-issue in the West. Death by starvation or death by exposure are very rare. It's more places like Africa that don't believe in economics that are starving. Also notice that in the West we do not have bread lines. Capitalism is not perfect, but at least I don't have to worry about food.

>>89407
>A non issue
Say that to the people on the street and they'll spit in your face.

>>89412
yeah, but to be fair the people on the street will spit on your face for basically no reason most of the time, or ask you for money, or offer to transport you back to Venus for a nominal fee. They're usually either insane, lazy, addicted to drugs, or all of the above; that's why they're on the streets. That's also why I don't usually talk to them. As far as actual, functional human beings go, anon is right; food and shelter are basically a non-issue here.

Capitalism is obviously and objectively the best economic system ever created. Many researches prove that free-market economics is the most effective compared economic system compared to others.

>B-but… MUH JEWS
Jews have nothing to do with capitalism, beside the fact that many of successful bussinessmen are Jewish. Instead of calling to gas them, learn from them. That helps a lot, believe me. While the probability that you'll become 2nd Bill Gates in quite low, you can still be successful at your business as long as you're smarter than a chimp and don't mind sacrificing your health both mental and physical.

>I WENT BANKRUPT REEEEEEE
Probably you made poor business decisions or someone just knocked you off the market. Capitalism is most of all about competition between companies. Also, before you start a business, think twice if it's even going to be a good idea. Not everyone is a good businessman. Not every business idea is going to be profitable.

>I CUNT RUN A COMPANY BCUZ TAXES REEEEE
Not every state/country is the best place to run a business. It all depends on the local tax policy.

>BIG CORPORATIONS EXPLOIT PPL, IN SOCIALISM THERE'S NOTHING LIKE THAT
While their actions on the market are not really moral and they tend to lobby in the government to enforce their position on the market, they also gave us jobs, technologic advancement and cheaper products. Current economic system in most of countries is kinda broken, as it favors the big corps, which I'm obviously against. Their actions are indeed very questionable and I personally have mixed opinions on them. Socialism every fucking time has proved to bring only poverty. Look at Soviet Russia, look at North Korea, look at Cuba. Socialism if even working somehow, it fulfills only the basic human needs, that is eat, sleep, shit. No possibility of further self-development. Actually, a lot of anons are filthy NEETs so that explains their favor of socialism.

>>88936
if you killed all the jews, niggers, and mexicans almost any economic system could be prosperous

>>89477
>Socialism every fucking time has proved to bring only poverty.

Say that to the workers' co-ops on my island and they'll laugh at you.

>Look at Soviet Russia, look at North Korea, look at Cuba.

The state and socialism are incompatible concepts. Socialism means there are no social classes because there is no property that creates social hierarchy. The state, in state "socialism", creates another ruling class (Mikhail Bakunin: Statism and Anarchy). As a result, it's closer to state-run capitalism than socialism. So, ask yourself this: Is there a state? Yes? It's not socialism.

>The free market
>Neoliberalism
Why not talk to Africa about how that went for them?

Oh wait, it got so bad that they called for socialist dictatorships? What? People starved to death in the streets? What? The wealth disparities only got worse? What? Monopolies formed? What? It's almost like this free market thing is a scam.

Every successful Western country has implemented protectionist economic policies during their development.

>Many researches prove that free-market economics is the most effective compared economic system compared to others.

[Citation needed]

>Objective
Objectiveness is a spook.

>>89422
>They're usually either insane, lazy, addicted to drugs, or all of the above; that's why they're on the streets.

We have enough housing in the United States to end homelessness here four times over. "Muh mental illness", "muh laziness", "muh drugs", are not an excuse to withhold a basic human need from people when we are more than able to supply it.

People who are sick shouldn't be without a roof; they should be getting medical attention. People doing drugs shouldn't be thrown in jail; they should be given a better way to cope and put in rehab. People who are "lazy" should be taught how to contribute to society, not starved in the streets. People should never be thrown away to suffer and die.

>>89477
Might I also add: Free markets and capitalism are not synonymous. Free market socialism also exists.

>>89486
even comunist's economic system?

>>89493
>People who are sick shouldn't be without a roof; they should be getting medical attention
Ideally; in case you haven't noticed the cost of medical care has been a topic of serious discussion in this country for the last several years. If the country was being managed well enough that we wound up with a surplus of revenue every year I'd say what the hell, use it to provide health care for bums. As it is though, we're running up huge debts with just the welfare state that we have. It's not practical to even provide free health care for our productive citizens, what does society gain by spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on some transient just so he can get an extra 5 or 10 years of chugging vodka in an alley? It's not the responsibility of society to meet the needs of every single person in the country just because they exist and breathe oxygen.

>People doing drugs shouldn't be thrown in jail; they should be given a better way to cope and put in rehab
I get tired of this argument. Rehab doesn't work when you force it on someone. Some people need more help than others, but overcoming any addiction requires the willing participation of the addicted person. In any event, people are responsible for their own lives and their own situation; it's not a social responsibility to round them up and spend money to force treatment on them they don't want. People are responsible for their own situation.

>People who are "lazy" should be taught how to contribute to society, not starved in the streets
Again, not my responsibility. I live in a city with a huge concentration of homeless people. While a few of them fit into the categories above, ie people with legitimate mental/physical health problems or drug addictions that can be pitied to some extent, honestly the vast majority I've seen fit into this third category, people who just flat out can't be bothered to do anything productive. Most of them are young, perfectly able bodied, are usually not the sharpest knives in the drawer but could probably hold down a job doing manual labor or fast food or something. However, most just don't want to. They always have shitty attitudes; usually they view themselves as living some kind of bohemian lifestyle superior to that of the "suckers" who get up and work every day. I have neither the time, the energy, nor the responsibility to stand around trying to convince some dipshit with tattoos on his face about the value of an honest day's work. I'm willing to pay for prisons or work camps, but I don't see any particular reason why some idiot who can't even be fucked to walk into McDonald's and ask for a job application should be treated to free housing and health care on my dime.

>We have enough housing in the United States to end homelessness here four times over
And who's going to pay for that, exactly? Do you expect somebody who invested money into buying land and constructing a home on it to just give it away to some indigent turd on the streets because he "needs" it, and take the loss? Or do you propose that the state start buying up empty houses, or constructing new ones when you run out of existing houses, in which case the taxpayers are essentially paying the cost of their own housing plus the cost of housing all these homeless people? And it's not as if it's just a matter of purchasing the property, either. Houses need periodic maintenance. Again, someone who can't even manage something as simple as holding down a crappy minimum wage job and renting a room is probably not going to bother keeping his free house in good repair, so someone will have to do that. Someone will have to pay for electricity and heat, and remember that all this is on top of the free food and health care and addiction treatment that you mentioned earlier. The costs just keep rising and rising, and what is society's ultimate return on its investment? The satisfaction of knowing that some retard with dreadlocks and face tattoos is sitting in a house he doesn't take care of that he didn't pay for, smoking meth all day while you work your ass off to pay for both your life and his?

Based on your posts in this thread, you seem to be some type of socialist. I literally don't care which type, or whether you believe in a state-run system or a stateless system of mutual cooperation. Those distinctions don't ultimately matter because it comes down to the same thing. You believe in a system of collective responsibility and selective effort. Everyone gets their needs met regardless of whether or not they contribute, and everyone who contributes is expected to bear the burden of the people who don't. It's a shit system, every instance in which it is or has been implemented has either failed or is failing. Go take a helicopter ride.

>>89512
all communism has been run by jews, look into Mao's advisers. With them gone there'd be no communism

>>89536
this to be honest I want a self-reliant society, I'd help my white neighbors and I might feed the homeless people I run into but if someone in another state or even city is without work, food, housing, or healthcare I don't see how it's my problem/concern/responsibility or why it should be. The notion that the haves of society have some obligation to the have nots is a load of shit, I'm responsible for myself and at most my immediate family, I might CHOOSE to help others but it's absurd that I should be required to. Socialism is the belief that taxpayers, be they rich or working class, are less entitled to the money they earn and less entitled to full ownership of their property than the poor are to government handouts

>>89589
I honestly have less of a problem with the concept of a social safety net than I do with the ways in which such a net tends to be abused, and the idea as you said that people who work and support themselves are obligated to help those who don't. I would be okay with some type of limited public welfare program under the following conditions:

>all illegal immigrants are deported
>all refugee programs and diversity-based immigration programs will be terminated
>immigration is limited to a strictly merit-based system; companies may only hire immigrants who are either exceptionally talented or if there are no natives available to do the work. No unskilled immigrants admitted.
>the majority of work-based immigration is temporary, permanent citizenship is granted only in rare circumstances
>immigration/citizenship eligibility does not automatically extend to families of immigrants

Basically, only actual native citizens of the US who need gibs are eligible for US gibs. Furthermore:

>all current social welfare programs will be eliminated; programs like welfare, food stamps, medicaid, housing assistance, etc will be done away with and replaced with a single government department that issues monthly stipends to individuals who have literally no other way of taking care of themselves. if necessary, the department will manage how the money is spent.
>social security will be eliminated; citizens will have the option to have a portion of each paycheck deducted by the government and deposited into a retirement savings account if they like
>the US gibs department will receive a set limited amount of money each year based on the year's budget. States and individuals can contribute to this fund if they like but are not required to.
>due to the limited amount of funding the department can expect to receive, it is in the department's interest to be conservative about what gibs are distributed and to whom. Department salaries will be paid from the same fund after all appropriated gibs are distributed. If all the money in the fund is distributed as gibs, employees of the department will not be paid. The Federal government will NOT appropriate additional funds if it goes overbudget, and in that case the department will have to rely on private donations or revenue from states. The department is encouraged to take all this into consideration when interviewing applicants and awarding gibs; they are also encouraged to keep their payroll lean. The department will be overseen by and subject to random audits by the federal government to ensure that abuses are not taking place. The federal government has the right to defund or terminate the program at any time.
>strict rules will be in place determining who is eligible for gibs. in order to be eligible for a stipend, you must be able to demonstrate that you are physically or mentally incapable of doing any sort of work at all. Strict criteria will be imposed. These stipends will likely be rare, and mostly reserved for severely injured or disabled people, elderly without pensions or retirement funds, terminally sick people, and the mentally ill.
>persons capable of work who can't find a job can get help finding a job. The department will be expected to take skills and preferences into account, but if they find you a job you pretty much have to take it whatever it is. If all they can find is monkey-shit-shoveler at the zoo, that's your new job until you can find something better on your own. If you refuse all jobs offered, or quit a job that is found for you, or get fired for a dumb reason, you will not be eligible for any further assistance that year.

Also, in order to make sure all of this would run much more smoothly, ideally I would prefer the following conditions to be true:

>blacks are gone. Africa, prison, the Moon; I don't care where they go, just get rid of them. this will probably eliminate the vast majority of welfare program abuses.
>ditto for Jews.
>police have more leeway to deal with public vagrancy and homelessness as they see fit. police will assist in helping homeless individuals who meet the criteria for stipends get set up with what they need.
>police will also assist in "encouraging" junkies, street thugs, and the "voluntarily homeless" to either get a fucking job or go join the niggers on the Moon. Encouragement will likely involve a nightstick and the person's face or genitals.
>cities, particularly overpriced liberal cities, will be encouraged to manage their housing situations so that low-cost housing is available for people who need it, and housing in general remains affordable for the average working citizen.
>since no system is perfect and inevitably this system will not be able to provide for everyone who needs help, private citizens, particularly celebrities, billionaire philanthropists and other rich liberal types, will be encouraged to use their own resources to start or support shelters and charities dedicated to helping the poor.
>most leftists will have been thrown out of helicopters by now, so a lot of these stipulations will just be formalities.

>>89609
Do as the National Socialists did, and spur job creation in order to get more of a tax surplus.

>>89609
>limited public welfare program
only on a state/local level and even then I think it's still something better accomplished through private charity rather than government

>>89609
also
>having police
http://archive.li/hLaxp

>>89536
Honestly I think you are making it too easy for yourself.

I like this thread. Lots of ideas to toy with. Lots of different angles.

If you would be in charge what changes would you make to the western capitalistic system?
Central banks and banking, lobby groups, crony and subventions, money creation, patents and intelectual property, taxes and funding…
Anything goes.

>>89896
Get rid of central banks, free up the banking system (believe it or not, it's one of the most heavily regulated sectors in America), privatize money creation, abolish taxes and public funding. Lobby groups and cronyism couldn't exist without a government to feed upon. Patents and intellectual property I'm less familiar with and so I'll leave that; even many of the greatest minds cannot agree upon them. Personally I feel artistic copyright is a bit too strict (Hasbro's taken down a bunch of fanmade content, for example), but I'm more open to strong technology protection.

You ever notice how quick the communists are to blame everything wrong with the modern non-free jew-dominated bought-lobbyist-controlled big-business-owned world on capitalism, then claim Communism is the only way to defeat these "Evils inherent in the system"?

If Jews and Commies have been working together and planning this all along for the past 1000 years, I'll be fucking pissed.

>>89940
>privatize money creation
okay that leaves me confused

>>89947
Come on not everything criticism of current day capitalism is communism.