1.most criticism of "capitalism" is criticism of monopolies, oligopolies, centralized economies2. complete unfettered free market is not capitalism, it's a dystopia, and should never be tried3. real capitalism has been tried and worked wonderfully
>>62034028monopolies and oligopolies are the natural conclusion of capitalism. startups competing with established players is theoretical nonsense which exist only within the confines of a jewish professor's classroom. startups of course exist but they are basically limited to:>industries that are not capital intensive and which can scale almost infinitely (software, fin tech jewery, etc.)>industries that are capital intensive but can easily grab unlimited government dollars or institutional dollarsyou're never going to see a startup telecom company that competes with AT&T or verizon (and isn't just a reseller of AT&T or verizon's services.)you're never going to see a startup commercial jet manufacturer that competes with boeing and airbus.you're never going to see a startup petroleum refiner that competes with exxon and chevron.etc.
>>62034212they are a natural conclusion of every economic system, not just capitalismit's a social/political issue, and part of the human conditioncriticizing capitalism for those when other economic systems not only have them but accelerate them is disingenuous
>>62034212It's not nonsense. It's a law of the world. Communists are so retarded.
>>62034377thank you for your input, gentile slave.
>>62034390Are the disproportionate sizes of trees in the rainforest also conclusions of capitalism? What about body mass distribution of bodybuilders? What about the sizes of sharks in the ocean? Monopolies are not a consequence of capitalism. It's a consequence of the laws of accumulation. It's not something that can be changed by creating a new system of governance, all that does is create a vacuum for a new monopoly to inhabit.If you go into the rainforest and chop all the trees down to the same size so everyone is even and the tiny little trees can grow in a fair economy of sunlight, all you've done is create more real estate for new giant trees to take over.This is something retarded communists do not understand.
>>62034028>1.most criticism of "capitalism" is criticism of monopolies, oligopolies, centralized economiesThat’s a market structure, form of government, and economic system. Taking specifically about those terms would not be a general criticism of capitalism.>complete unfettered free market is not capitalismIt would be capitalism if it actually existed. It doesn’t do anything particularly different or revolutionary enough to distance itself from the capitalist mode of production.>3. real capitalismHas existed for hundreds of years. Read a history textbook>>62034240>they are a natural conclusion of every economic system, not just capitalism It’s a natural conclusion of every economic system under capitalism >part of the human condition>muh human natureSilly>>62034377This guy thinks universal moralism exists
>>62034433>Monopolies are not a consequence of capitalismThey quite literally are>It's a consequence of the laws of accumulationFuck off Grossman. Also, your analogy sucks. Utterly.
>>62034212This is true, which is why you have to heavily surveil and trustbust corpos. I think the chinese model is the best that has been created so far to deal with modernity.
>>62034484None of you understand class dynamics at all
>>62034469I made no mentions of morality, shitlord.>>62034480If they're a consequence of capitalism, why do they exist outside of capitalism, such as in nature itself, and even within communistic structures? Communism is literally a monopolized structure where everything is owned by the government and they have complete and utter control over all prices. It only sucks because it disproves your terrible uninformed perspective. Cutting all the trees down to one size so there's no disparity between the sizes does only one thing; it creates an empty space which can be filled by one giant tree to smother out every other tree.This is what we call communism. People only like communism because they want to be the giant tree, or a limb on the giant tree oppressing all the other trees.
>>62034028Capitalism puts the dollar above everything else including safety and nice neighborhoods. Capitalism let's people "vote with their dollars", vast majority of people are literally borderline retarded.
>>62034525sounds like an issue with people themselvesI'm expected to boycott all the things I don't like, like lootboxes in videogames, twitter, doordash and onlyfanswhy can't others do the same if there's something they dislike?
truthclear bomb
>>62034508>I made no mentions of moralityDon’t have to, language gave it away.>such as in nature itselfMarkets exist in nature?>and even within communistic structures?What communistic structures?>Communism is literally a monopolized structure where everything is owned by the government and they have complete and utter control over all prices.No moneyNo class No state>It only sucks because it disproves your terrible uninformed perspective.No, it sucks because it fails to detail class dynamics and it reduces down everything to fucking trees.
>>62034538Sound like you don’t understand class dynamics
>>62034555trust me if every single person in the world boycotted onlyfans it would be shut down tomorrow
>>62034538>why can't othersBecause they are borderline retarded yet you insist that they have a say in everything.
>>62034499>>62034550>>62034555Uh, what are class dynamics and how do I short them.
>>62034561Not a realistic prospect >>62034568Be a bear every time wages go up
>>62034586welp then the fault lies on the people for refusing to boycott
>>62034595The fault lies more in the system that allows paypigs and investors to have an overwhelming voice in the first place.
>>62034028>3. real capitalism has been tried and worked wonderfullyWhere?
>>62034658Globally. For hundreds of years. It was an improvement over feudalism. It is not wonderful.
The final pill is hyper pragmatism. Sometimes you need full blown communist policies especially during something like a depression. Meanwhile right now, we should gut Medicare, social security and defense as well as any "tradition" or "culture" programs..but also skyrocketing nuclear energy programs.
>>62034672Feudalism w/ guilds works way better than capitalism for agrarian societies.
>>62034697>Sometimes you need full blown communist policiesYou get one or the other. Communism is its own mode of production.>we should gut Medicare, social security >any "tradition" or "culture" programsPlease do, so this sham can burn faster.>but also skyrocketing nuclear energy programs.I don’t feel like dealing with nuclear fallout and an even higher cancer rate because someone decided to cheap out yet again. So don’t.>>62034709You aren’t going to be no aristocrat, so stfu.
>>62034716Marx & Engels recognised that preindustrial peasants lived better and more fulfilled lives than industrial proles, do you even read?
>>62034732>recognized that preindustrial peasants lived better and more fulfilled livesThat’s not what he said. They had a better baseline when it came to ownership, yes. But he also regarded them as a fragmented group stuck in rural idiocy who representatives they also regarded as master. They could not stand for themselves. They had little to no social mobility, and they had yet to see the works of industrialized society with all of its benefits.So, while they may have had more in terms of ownership, it is the proletariat who can organize and stand up for themselves and potentially gain more than they ever could have.
>>62034212>See space X
The answer is right in front of us. What led Europe to its former glorious heights? What led England to conquer the world and become its envy? Capitalist monarchies with limited representative input. A good father/mother guiding the nation to glory, keeping the bureaucracy in check, keeping the monopolies in check. No organization works without a real leader. It simply won't. We can dance around this obvious truth as long as we'd like. The moment the monarchy declined in Britain so did the nation.Most great periods now, anywhere, are marked by a uniquely active, good leader. You will only have a good period if you have a good leader. Otherwise it's endless bureaucratic cronyism and rot no matter what label or title you slap on it.
>>62034803And this requires more power, rule for life, and some form of pragmatic inheritance/succession. Doesn't necessarily have to be familial dynasties, see the Doges in Venice, but it needs to be more powerful than our modern "Presidents" and "Prime Ministers", glorified puppets of the bureaucrats.
>>62034803Empire is folly. And great man theory goes into the trash for it’s poor material analysis.
>>62034550This has to be the most proudly midwit post I have ever witnessed. I don't know whether to try and debate it or denigrate it, but either way there's a distinct feeling I'd just be spinning my wheels
>>62034812It isn't a "theory", the only great times have come under a great man you fucking moron. This is trivially self evident.
>the same people that came up with "can a man be a woman" also think great men are a theoretical concept
>>62034812It's kind of hard to convince people that, say, the napoleonic empire was purely a product of social and material trends rather than a man taking advantage of the situation and directing a willing people according to his whims.
>>62034813Opinionated nonsense >>62034818>It isn't a "theoryOh, but it is. A very shit one at that.>the only great times have come underGreat material conditions, fool. Your so called “great man” does not work independently from the rest of the universe.>>62034829>It's kind of hard to convince peopleIt’s hard to convince stupid people set in their ways
>>62034833Doesn't discarding the notion that individual leaders and their quality have an impact on history also mean discarding the idea of placing any value on the quality of leaders whatsoever?
>>62034833>self aggrandizement at others expenseDenigration was definitely the play hereThere's no accounting for this tier of ego driven ignorance.
>>62034833Communists aren't worth listening to, on anything, ever, straight into the trash it goes
>>62034833>>62034868It all follows the same theme "We have no control over anything, everything is luck, we couldn't possibly shape fate or our reality, I'm a lazy stupid slug person and nothing can change that." Biowaste. Made for the slave fields.
>>62034847>Doesn't discarding the notion that individual leaders and their quality have an impact on historyThey are not being discarded. They are being properly evaluated. They are ultimately, at the end of the day, reactions. Reactions created by the efforts of thousands of people that came before and during their time. A culmination of the universe shifting and forming itself into the right conditions for their exact state of existence. They may be a reaction with favorable qualities, but they’re still a reaction. They are not weird eldritch entity that willed themselves into existence and is completely unaffected by anything in our universe while also simultaneously having the ability to purposefully affect it.
>>62034847Actually thinking about this, that might be kind of the point of historical materialism, from the bioleninist lens.
>>62034469>It’s a natural conclusion of every economic system under capitalismOnly if you do the Marxist doublethink of >everything I don't like is capitalism and is indistinct from capitalismThat simultaneously holds things like feudalism were capitalism while pretending they aren't in other parts of their theory. Anyhow successful accumulation of power leading to rent seeking behavior is universal from the first people to have domesticated goats ten thousand years ago to the Soviet Union. The only place it doesn't exist is in tribal societies where there was never enough wealth concentration for the division of labor to appear.
>>62034867Ignorance you say? How curious to say when you haven’t yourself yet?>>62034868No one likes a quitter.>>62034871Spare me. Great man theory is exactly that.>Made for the slave fields.How primitive. Reeks of disfunction.>>62034884That’s not the point of it. In this specific regard, it’s about addressing their excessive importance the eyes of many.
>>62034880No one considers them eldritch beings, and no one denied they are products of their circumstances. They are still great people that do great things because of who they are. Once again these are all your own projected weird ass ideas of how the universe works. Of course people are a product and a reaction, they come from parents, they are formed by culture and their events, and then they grow up and do things based off of that.You're scared of the fact that greatness can be developed, formed, because you're a narcissist that can't stand the thought of someone else being better and greater than you. So you reduce it all down to random chance, "of course they're rich it's luck", "of course they're great it's just random material circumstances." Anyone that has ever been a part of any great endeavor knows exactly why it was: the leader. And when the leader goes the decline is drastic and immediate.Greatness and leadership come in all shapes sizes and manifestations btw, it is the essential core building block of human society. It can be as simple as a great grandma that keeps her entire family happy and intact by hosting events, keeping everyone in touch, resolving conflicts, and when she dies everyone can feel it, the warmth and the glue are gone, and people dissipate.
>>62034914>everything I don't like is capitalism and is indistinct from capitalism>That simultaneously holds things like feudalism were capitalismNo one is saying this>Anyhow successful accumulation of power leading to rent seeking behavior is universal from the first people to have domesticated goats ten thousand years ago to the Soviet Union.Someone is forgetting about class dynamics again>The only place it doesn't exist is in tribal societies where there was never enough wealth concentration for the division of labor to appear.This is addressed with primitive communism
>>62034932In fact my two sides of the family highlight this. I have one active grandma that has always loved keeping her big family of kids together doing things, and another one that is reclusive and aloof and her family hates each other and barely keeps in touch. It's crazy just how much we do in fact actually affect our social world. You're terrified of the thought because you don't want the responsibility, you want to blame "the universe" for things going wrong when it could have been as simple as you nutting the fuck up and looking for a way to take control of the situation.
Any system can work as long as the majority of participants in the system are good actors and work with each other to combat bad actors and update the system to match the natural change in a societies needs. When this goes wrong you end up with shit like commisars starving people if they don't blow them and seething incel tech bros trying to genocide people
>>62034943The Marxist always holds contradictory positions about class and systems that are mutually exclusive. When rent seeking is a universal behavior across all civilizations that have crawled out of the mud, all systems, all variations of those systems, the only real explanation is a universal one. That other anon's appeal to human nature is a universal explanation. The Marxist tries to hold "They're all capitalists". Which is a universal statement that ignores the reality that they weren't all capitalists. In fact it's the first thing you said that it's a natural conclusion of capitalism. >this is addressedNo it isn't. What addresses flat tribal societies is the fact that concentration of wealth is a prerequisite for the division of labor to appear at least in 100% of the civilization where we've seen it appear. The god king with his wheat, the patriarch with his heard, and the selective dissemination of that wealth to workers is what allows workers as such to emerge in the first place. You'd think someone huffing the paint wholesale of material determinism would understand this but alas Marxists are retarded. But back in the real world and real world anthropology we see the initial concentrations of wealth are of a religious and kin selective nature. Once more it's human nature driving things not Marx's magic matter.
>>62034932>No one considers them eldritch beingsI would if they actually existed >and no one denied they are products of their circumstancesThey aren’t products of anything because they don’t exist >They are still great people that do great things because of who they areThey aren’t great anything doing great things because they don’t exist. The concepts and the people you apply them to are entirely separate things.>Once again these are all your own projected weird ass ideas of how the universe worksThat’s literally just how it works > Of course people are a product and a reactionAnd then you still agreed with me anyways>they come from parents, they are formed by culture and their eventsMore than that>You're scared of the fact that greatness can be developed“Greatness” can only be accomplished when the material conditions are met.>So you reduce it all down to random chanceIt’s exactly that though. The chances of you being born, the chances of your species even evolving, the chances of life on earth even existing, the chances of the solar system ever forming, the chances of the janitor remembering to put the wet floor sign down while dealing with a cold so you don’t slip and hit your head.>Anyone that has ever been a part of any great endeavor knows exactly why it wasThat isn’t true, but the correct answer would be achieving at least minimal quality material conditions.>You're terrified of the thought because you don't want the responsibility, you want to blame "the universe" for things going wrong when it could have been as simple as you nutting the fuck up and looking for a way to take control of the situation.You know that poses a great question for the existence for real will, but also I literally say anything related to your headcanon.
>>62035005They aren't just retarded, they're religious. Marxism is a religion. They need this to be true and they will say whatever is necessary to justify it, nonsense, contradictory nonsense. It's to protect the ego that needs it to be true. Their opinion is worse than useless, it's deliberately subversive, because a Marxist is uncomfortable in an environment where people are thriving (doing better than them), and prefers an environment of general rot, poverty, that validates their need for achievement to be impossible, for order to be impossible. It's a projection of a sick mind and they were right to give them chopper rides.
>>62034954>Any system can work as long as the majority of participants in the system are good actors and work with each other to combat bad actors and update the system to match the natural change in a societies needModes of production serve as a hard cap on what a system can do.
>>62035016>Marxism is a religionCommunism is scientific >they will say whatever is necessary to justify it, nonsense, contradictory nonsenseWe are scientific materialists, so no, we don’t actually >because a Marxist is uncomfortable in an environment where people are thriving (doing better than them), and prefers an environment of general rot, poverty, that validates their need for achievement to be impossible, for order to be impossibleProof?
>>62034212amazon competed with walmart cause breakthroughs in logistics and internet
>>62035025"what a system can do" is a meaningless phrase. When your the only nation left standing after a world war with access to as many industrial resources as cheap as you want, yeah what capitalism can do looks pretty good. That picture tends to change as the corruption of leaders in that society drifts leaving the system a broken mess of incestuous dealings and inequalities pushing it into fascism.
>>62035043>gommunism is scientificLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOh man this thread is solid spun gold
>>62035143>"what a system can do" is a meaningless phraseFor the uninformed? Certainly.>When your the only nation left standing after a world war with access to as many industrial resources as cheap as you want, yeah what capitalism can do looks prettyGood for the ill informed. Capitalist systems handles success poorly.>That picture tends to change as the corruption of leaders in that society driftsCorruption or by design?>fascism Now THAT is a worthless term.
>>62035222>NOOOOO MY PHRASES WEREN'T WORTHLESS SLOP THAT MEANT NOTHING REEEEENot an argument, thanks for playing
>>62035258You don’t know what a mode of production is? It is what your systems are based off of. A specific combination of social and technical relations of production and productive forces. They define the characteristics and qualities a system can have.When you said >Any system can work as long as the majority of participants in the system are good actors and work with each other to combat bad actors and update the system to match the natural change in a societies needsYou were incorrect and ignored class dynamics in the process as well. Having good actors is irrelevant when the mode of production and the systems it spawns are dedicated to bad actors and class.
>>62035321It's pretty simple dawg, "What a system can do" is meaningless so it's meaningless to measure your mode of production by it. Your reeing about how the mode of production is spawning bad actors because it's a meaningless hallucination your presenting like a quantifiable observation. Thus this isn't an argument and your simply getting ass mad that your measurements are meaningless slop and reeing more, so thanks for playing.
>>62035358>What a system can do" is meaningless>it's a meaningless hallucination>because I said soOk dude
>>62034803>Most great periods now, anywhere, are marked by a uniquely active, good leader. You will only have a good period if you have a good leader. Otherwise it's endless bureaucratic cronyism and rot no matter what label or title you slap on it.Chicken and egg. There are definitely great leaders who swam against the current of geopolitical and societal trends(like Napoleon) but most of them were simply a leader while their societies were in the middle of a great boom.So the question is was it the greatness of these men that brought along great times or was it the greatness of those times that made history remember these men as greats?
>>62034550>No money>No class>No stateno food
>>62037504You can't convince tankies their worldview is retarded with facts and history because they didn't convince themselves to be commies by examining the pragmatism of their worldview in the first place.
>>62035043After reading this entire thread, I can only say that I find your worldview to be amusingly puzzling.>Part unconscious appeal to predestination Everything that is made and will be made is manifest by the universe. The universe creates good times. The universe creates hardships. The universe sets up leaders and topples empires. The universe created the state in which there are divisions of labor and nefarious systems of production that need to be toppled by the participants it also created in order to usher in a state of statelessness, all the while its participants are merely puppets conducting the universe's bidding as it implants great and notable observations in the minds of otherwise unremarkable individuals.Is not the universe then the theoretical godlike great man pulling all the strings, e.g. it is fruitless to do anything other than exist with some illusion of free will?>Part disdain for commoners.Unless I'm wrong here, the only people spared from your critiques are Marx, Engels, the universe, and yourself. By virtue of arguing with "ill-educated and uneducated" are you not positioning yourself as something of an intellectual superior to the masses, a thought leader, and, if you will, a "great man" and leader who must convince others that this scientific communism you espouse can and will annihilate the state, class, and money to their benefit?If the universe will do this on its own, with us as its dolls and playthings, then by your own logic you don't exist. It will make itself evident and ultimate and there is no need for you to argue a thing, let alone for us all to have a conversation about it.The inherent mysticism will usher in its own scientific order with no need for conduct, experimentation, control, or leadership.
How did he deal with corpos? What was his secret?
>>62034028Only a human is stupid enough to post this. Can't be a bot.
>>62042611here's another non bot opinion I havethe epstein files are the distraction, not the war with iran
