>>18543657
>capitalism wasn't invented by a single person
And?

>why do they treat capitalism as something that was forced onto society and as a foreign body?
Because it was forced onto most of society. Capitaloon apologists have been operating on the premise that distributed evil is valid evil because muh free will and there's no one in particular to blame for it since at least the days of Locke. And they think people haven't learned to see through it in centuries since.

>>18543657
There was an entire era of absolute monarchy after the middle ages, before capitalism was forced upon the people.

You could claim it was invented at 1600 with the creation of the east india companies. Which did nothing but plunder, and capitalism never worked for anything that didn't revolve around plundering other lands, where the losses didn't count.

>>18543683
Forced by who and when? How were people forced into capitalism?

>>18543696
That is colonialism

>>18543699
>How were people forced into capitalism?
the search terms you're looking for are "proletarianization" and "immiseration"
look up the enclosure acts for a famous early example

>>18543699
>That is colonialism
Exactly, and that's the only case when capitalism worked. Only the gains of the plunderer were accounted for, not the losses of the plundered.

>>18543699
>Forced by who and when?
Forced by the collective greed of the ruling class and the merchants catering to them. The fact that no one in particular invented the economic dynamics that disincentivized anything besides concentrating human cattle in filthy urban sewers doesn't prevent me tracing it to its historical source.

File: Screenshot 2026-06-23 120748.png (95 KB, 1202x447)

95 KB PNG

>>18543702
It would be cool if you could explain it yourself, I don't like marxist sophistry and their made-up nonsense words

>>18543709
Ok, is the ruling class supernatural entities from another dimension? They are not native to this world and are foreign body in the society? They are not part of the society and do not act in their nature? Was feudalism also forced onto society? Do carnivores force herbivores into carnivoralism?

>>18543712
>b-b-but the parasite minority i-i-is also a heckin' part of society!!
I accept your full concession.

>>18543713
No you are afraid of continuing dialogue because you have nothing to say. Marxists act as if capitalism is not a natural flow of how society formed itself and it should be removed and instead we should live according to an anti-thesis to how the world works

>>18543711
I also gave you a famous example in the enclosure acts? Colonial head taxes (paid in coin, of course, not in kind) are another one, I'm sorry that wiki is poorly written.
The tl;dr of it is that the ruling class uses the state as a means to force peasants to participate in the commercial economy at the lowest rung.

>>18543714
>muh heckin' capitalism wasn't invented by a single person
You conceded that this doesn't matter.

>muh heckin' capitalism wasn't forced on society
You conceded it was forced on most of society by a tiny fraction of it.

>b-b-but muh capitalism is natural
>b-b-but muh marxist boogeyman
Now that I've reduced you down to the level of 80 IQ ideological tropes I'll let other 80 IQs finish the job. This is simply below consideration.

>>18543716
The "forced upon" means that the natural flow of events was artificially obstructed and is not allowed to resume it's natural flow. Marxism acts as if you remove capitalism, underneath, there's the correct society that is artificially handicapped by capitalism.
>You conceded that this doesn't matter.
Capitalism not intentionally designed by 1 or more people is an argument towards capitalism being natural state of society. Don't know why you say "you conceded", but it's probably something you saw other people say here and now you repeat it to feel like you won the argument.
>You conceded it was forced on most of society by a tiny fraction of it.
"Forced" means it is artificial, it is not. Humans are not "forced" to walk on 2 legs and birds are not "forced" to fly.
>Now that I've reduced you
If you just write something it doesn't make it true, but it can work as a shield for your ego, which is what you are probably doing. I never insulted you or said anything rude, but you did. Is this personal for you? Why are you getting so emotional?

>>18543717
>The "forced upon" means...
It means forced by the collective greed of the ruling class and the merchants catering to them.

>Capitalism not intentionally designed
The fact that no one in particular invented the economic dynamics that disincentivized anything besides concentrating human cattle in filthy urban sewers doesn't prevent me tracing it to its historical source.

You've already conceded this.

>>18543717
By the way, it was every bit as "natural" for capitalists, their sympathizers and associates to be tortured, executed and worked to death in Siberian labor camps.

>>18543718
You are just repeating same marxist mantras. You are ignoring every question I have and spending time writing how you hate capitalism.
>>18543719
This reply pretty much defines you. You are trying to do some petty "gotcha" and get me emotional, because you are convinced I care about capitalism on a personal level, the same way you care about communism. For some reason it's very common for marxists to make torture or death threats the moment you start exposing their lies.

>>18543723
Notice how your psychotic illness is causing you to project. At no point did I say anything Marxism-related.

>The "forced upon" means...
It means forced by the collective greed of the ruling class and the merchants catering to them.

>Capitalism not intentionally designed
The fact that no one in particular invented the economic dynamics that disincentivized anything besides concentrating human cattle in filthy urban sewers doesn't prevent me tracing it to its historical source.

You've already conceded this.

>You are trying to do some petty "gotcha"
What petty gotcha? Exterminating capitalists is as natural as breathing. Your handlers know and acknowledge this. That's why they can't get out of their house without mercenaries protecting them. That's why they invest billions in brainwashing people with pro-capitalist propaganda. That's why they're building a dystopian ML-driven panopticon. They know where the natural flow goes and they're taking countless artificial measures to protect themselves from the discontentment they create and redirect it against others.

>>18543726
You have very bad reading comprehension. Your every point is taken from marxist text and you use their terminology and their mantras. I hope your "At no point did I say anything Marxism-related." is just ironic joke and not a total delusion.

Let me tell you again and lets see if you will get it this time.
Marxist rhetoric is often based on the implication that capitalism is an artificial extraneous substance in the body of society and that once upon a time there was peace, but then John Capitalism invented capitalism and forced it upon the society. They say this, because they want to make it seems like the total abolishment of everything is absolutely crucial, because without total abolishment and revolution marxists cannot usurp power. This tendency to take a natural phenomenon and paint it as a foreign body is a repeated pattern. Take the "ruling class" for example. Does capitalism promise no ruling class? Because ruling class is just hierarchy, and hierarchy exists not because John Hierarchy invented hierarchy and forced it upon society, it is a fundamental part of life itself. This is a basic rule of nature. This was my argument, this is why I originally asked who forced capitalism, this is why I originally stated that nobody invented capitalism. Now read this carefully before replying please.

>>18543734
>Your every point is taken from marxist tex
You're having psychosis.

>The "forced upon" means...
It means forced by the collective greed of the ruling class and the merchants catering to them.

>Capitalism not intentionally designed
The fact that no one in particular invented the economic dynamics that disincentivized anything besides concentrating human cattle in filthy urban sewers doesn't prevent me tracing it to its historical source.

You've already conceded this.

>it is a fundamental part of life itself. This is a basic rule of nature
Exterminating capitalists is as natural as breathing. Your handlers know and acknowledge this. That's why they can't get out of their house without mercenaries protecting them. That's why they invest billions in brainwashing people with pro-capitalist propaganda. That's why they're building a dystopian ML-driven panopticon. They know where the natural flow goes and they're taking countless artificial measures to protect themselves from the discontentment they create and redirect it against others.

>>18543734
i don't know why it's so funny watching you struggle to get back on your preprogrammed track while he keeps derailing you

>>18543735
Remember how I said that you are afraid of continuing dialogue because you have nothing to say? You copying your replies few times in a row now is an evidence that I was right. And the fact that you are not trying to engage with my posts and that you ignore my total and unquestionable destruction of your arguments is also an evidence that you are trying to have "the last word", because it got very personal for you. Since I am a generous person, I will give you the last word. I'm afraid without it you might do something to yourself.
>>18543737
Pretending to be 2 different people is not a good look.

>>18543738
>you have nothing to say
You have not made any new points.
>muh heckin' capitalism wasn't invented by a single person
You conceded that this doesn't matter.

>muh heckin' capitalism wasn't forced on society
You conceded it was forced on most of society by a tiny fraction of it.

>muh capitalism is natural
So is killing those sitting at the top of a system that makes those at the bottom miserable. Your handlers concede this by the sheer amount of resources they invest in reinforcing their desired order.

>>18543738
>BTFOd and seething

>>18543746
>You have not made any new points.
I did

>You conceded that this doesn't matter.
Why

>You conceded it was forced on most of society by a tiny fraction of it.
Where

>So is killing those sitting at the top of a system that makes those at the bottom miserable. Your handlers concede this by the sheer amount of resources they invest in reinforcing their desired order.
I'm ok if you are writing down your murderous power fantasies for the sake of your own mental stability, but if you do this to try to get me emotional just know that I don't really care so maybe don't waste time on that.

>>18543751
Please stop pretending to be 2 different people, it's getting ridiculous

>>18543752
>I did
You're having psychosis.

>The "forced upon" means...
It means forced by the collective greed of the ruling class and the merchants catering to them.

You did not dispute this was the case. ^

>Capitalism not intentionally designed
The fact that no one in particular invented the economic dynamics that disincentivized anything besides concentrating human cattle in filthy urban sewers doesn't prevent me tracing it to its historical source.

You did not dispute this waste the case. ^

>it is a fundamental part of life itself. This is a basic rule of nature
Exterminating capitalists is as natural as breathing. Your handlers know and acknowledge this. That's why they can't get out of their house without mercenaries protecting them. That's why they invest billions in brainwashing people with pro-capitalist propaganda. That's why they're building a dystopian ML-driven panopticon. They know where the natural flow goes and they're taking countless artificial measures to protect themselves from the discontentment they create and redirect it against others.

You did not dispute this is the case. ^

>>18543752
lol. die mad you programmed golem

>>18543755
>You're having psychosis.
It doesn't work when you end every reply with a paragraph of violent power fantasies. The fact that you repeated one of them and added "You did not dispute this is the case" shows that you actually do believe it makes me mad. I really don't care. If you want to go kill capitalists, go kill them. Write me a letter how many did you manage to get.

>It means forced by the collective greed of the ruling class and the merchants catering to them.
"Forced means forced" is a circular definition, invalidated.

>The fact that no one in particular invented the economic dynamics that disincentivized anything besides concentrating human cattle in filthy urban sewers doesn't prevent me tracing it to its historical source.
So?

>>18543756
Please keep yourself calm, I feel like you are at your limit. Take a break if you need

>>18543761
>"Forced means forced" is a circular definition
I provided no such definition. You're having psychosis.

>So?
So you're not disputing it the fact that it was forced. No one went to live in disease-infested concentration camps overflowing with shit to suffer astronomical mortality rates because capitalism was so great. People did it because the ruling class was actively making rural life into living hell.

>>18543763
>I provided no such definition. You're having psychosis.
"It means forced by the collective greed of the ruling class and the merchants catering to them." Saying "it means" is providing a definition.

>So you're not disputing it the fact that it was forced.
In this part you were talking about the fact that capitalism isn't invented by a single person does not stop you from tracing it historically, meaning, there was a historical start of capitalism. How is it related to being or not being forced? It only means there is a time frame to capitalism.

>>18543769
>Saying "it means" is providing a definition.
Only in your clearly deranged "mind".

>How is it related to being or not being forced?
You're not disputing the fact that it was forced. No one went to live in disease-infested concentration camps overflowing with shit to suffer astronomical mortality rates because capitalism was so great. People did it because the ruling class was actively making rural life into living hell.

>>18543761
keep losing you freak. kek

>>18543770
>Only in your clearly deranged "mind".
Not it is very literally how it works and everyone who speaks English would agree.

>You're not disputing the fact that it was forced.
You specifically said that capitalism not being invented by a single person does not restrict you from tracing capitalism historically. Anything has a time frame, start and end. You said that I "conceded" to this. To what? Existence of time? How is this, specifically, related to the conversation?

When here >>18543761 I asked to elaborate on that, you suddenly changed your mind and here said >>18543761 "So you're not disputing the fact that it was forced". You completely forgot what you were talking about and decided to just repeat the argument that you feel you have more power in.

In order to dispute an argument that it was forced you first need to make an argument that it was forced. You are saying that it was forced because forced means forced by ruling class, which is a circular definition - so invalid.

>>18543779
>Not it is very literally how it works
Only in the context of your psychotic disease. Anybody sane would be able to see the statement is an elaboration on what is meant by capitalism being forced, outlining a situation where the regular meaning of 'forced' applies.

You're not disputing the fact that it was forced. No one went to live in disease-infested concentration camps overflowing with shit to suffer astronomical mortality rates because capitalism was so great. People did it because the ruling class was actively making rural life into living hell.

You're also not disputing the fact that it didn't need to be "invented" by any individual, it was a result of the collective greed of the ruling class and the merchants catering to its parasitical hedonism.

>>18543782
>No one went to live in disease-infested concentration camps overflowing with shit to suffer astronomical mortality rates because capitalism was so great. People did it because the ruling class was actively making rural life into living hell.
>didn't need to be "invented" by any individual, it was a result of the collective greed of the ruling class and the merchants catering to its parasitical hedonism.
/threads the entire thread, OP will continue deflecting because this is historically accurate

>>18543782
I like how you got so angry you are forgetting to add a power fantasy paragraph now.

>elaboration on what is meant by capitalism being forced
>what is meant is that forced means forced
Circular definition, invalidated. If you are trying to say that in your mind capitalism was forced because there were individuals participating in colonialism then read my previous posts where I specify the context of my argument. tldr: capitalism wasn't forced onto society, it is how society structured itself naturally.

>It didn't need to be "invented" by any individual
So?

>>18543787
You're not disputing the fact that it was forced. No one went to live in disease-infested concentration camps overflowing with shit to suffer astronomical mortality rates because capitalism was so great. People did it because the ruling class was actively making rural life into living hell.

You're also not disputing the fact that it didn't need to be "invented" by any individual, it was a result of the collective greed of the ruling class and the merchants catering to its parasitical hedonism.

You're also not disputing the fact that exterminating capitalists is natural. That's why they can't get out of their house without mercenaries protecting them. That's why they invest billions in brainwashing people with pro-capitalist propaganda. That's why they're building a dystopian ML-driven panopticon. They know where the natural flow goes and they're taking countless artificial measures to protect themselves from the discontentment they create and redirect it against others.

>>18543784
>>18543772
>>18543756
>>18543751
>>18543737
The most pathetic thing itt

>>18543790
keep losing and seething, dumb golem

Marxistbros, why are we reduced to chimping out and making death threats instead of arguing in favor of the working class and improving their conditions? How did the capitalist class demoralize us so badly?

>>18543789
Alright, you are getting back to the strategy that, for some reason, you think is working - I will simply repeat what I already said and ignore all counter-arguments that have been made. Last time I forced you out of this trance here >>18543738 by manipulation your insulted intellectualism and ego. I'm not gonna do it again because this dialogue depleted itself. You are, once again, trying to have the last word because your childish nature thinks that if you are the last to leave a reply it means you won. I made the thread to validate that my thoughts were correct and talking with you helped me to confirm it. Get help dude.

>>18543795
You're not disputing the fact that it was forced. No one went to live in disease-infested concentration camps overflowing with shit to suffer astronomical mortality rates because capitalism was so great. People did it because the ruling class was actively making rural life into living hell.

You're also not disputing the fact that it didn't need to be "invented" by any individual, it was a result of the collective greed of the ruling class and the merchants catering to its parasitical hedonism.

You're also not disputing the fact that exterminating capitalists is natural. That's why they can't get out of their house without mercenaries protecting them. That's why they invest billions in brainwashing people with pro-capitalist propaganda. That's why they're building a dystopian ML-driven panopticon. They know where the natural flow goes and they're taking countless artificial measures to protect themselves from the discontentment they create and redirect it against others.

>>18543657
>nobody "invented" capitalism, this is just how the society moved on from feudalism.
All of this is incorrect.

File: justlol.png (287 KB, 577x633)

287 KB PNG

you can only say that because you are dealing with effectively prehistorical periods with no archives and mostly bullshit history not unlike most leftist history and its labels. capitalism for example is as old as cities and long distance trade in copper and tin and therefore older than the so called feudalism.of marxian theory. anyways if there was granular history for that far back rather than a handful of fragmentary accounts of possibly made up classical authors that is not remotely enough, then it would be possible to track how these things came to be.

"Capitalism" isn't even an ideology. If it is anything, it's a collection of financial institutions and tools like banking, insurance, and the corporation, that allows people to invest present value for future value by pooling their resources and managing risks.

File: smart_brainlet.jpg (30 KB, 700x567)

30 KB JPG

>capitalism for example is as old as cities and long distance trade in copper and tin and therefore
>uhh...
>therefore...
>HURRRRRRR!!!

File: brainlet21.png.png (210 KB, 1024x1024)

210 KB PNG

>"Capitalism" isn't even an ideology
>immediately proceeds to frame all economic activity in terms of his degenerate ideology and its values

Reminder that the word "capitalism" itself was literally coined as a term of cynical critique. The term capitalist was coined by early socialist thinkers to refer to people in industrialized societies who hoarded all wealth, it's effectively synonymous with robber baron.

Early proponents of the free market like Adam Smith did not use the term capitalism, instead they used terms like "commercial society" or the "system of natural liberty" and they held many viewpoints that modern "capitalists" would brand as radical leftism because guess what, their "pro-market" stance did not mean they were pro-business.

>>18543885
>Early proponents of the free market like Adam Smith did not use the term capitalism
Its current proponents do and that's what matters.

>their "pro-market" stance did not mean they were pro-business
And Marx's "anti-market" stance did not mean he was pro-gulag. It doesn't matter what brainlet ideologues aim for when they shill cancerous systems. The way muh markets actually play out defines the system and the purpose of a system is what it does.

>>18543825
The Romans had joint-stock companies (publicani), massive private estates (latifundia), wage labor, and complex banking networks. The core mechanism—accumulating resources, investing them for profit, and hierarchical ownership—didn't magically spawn in 18th century because someone invented a steam engine. It's an extension of basic human resource-hoarding behavior. Capitalism is just natural behaviour of the bald monkey brain.

>>18543888
I know, Adam Smith is closer to Marx than most people want to admit. I’m not in agreement with the OP

>>18543891
>irrelevant AI slop

>>18543893
Good. No one should be in agreement with a brainlet OP.

Don't entertain the marxister's humiliation fetish

>>18543717
> Marxism acts as if you remove capitalism, underneath, there's the correct society that is artificially handicapped by capitalism
No lmfao wtf. How can you be so stupid lol, Marx’s entire point is that there is no mystical natural organization of for society and that each new society emerges from the new one

> Capitalism not intentionally designed by 1 or more people is an argument towards capitalism being natural state of society
No society was built or imposed by one individual. Feudalism emerged because clans managed to seize power for themselves against monarchs. Capitalism emerged because free cities managed to become more powerful than feudal aristocratic families etc. There is no «natural» state of society. The closest we have to that are tribes that are ironically closer to a communist form of organization than capitalism

>>18543734
> but then John Capitalism invented capitalism and forced it upon the society
I don’t get the point of making posts that are so blatantly wrong. I’m curious anon, what prompted you to make this thread when you obviously don’t know anything ?
Oh and btw marx did not believe this

>>18544028
>I’m curious anon, what prompted you to make this thread when you obviously don’t know anything ?
I'm a massive brainlet and I have a humiliation fetish.

>>18544028
>Capitalism emerged because free cities managed to become more powerful than feudal aristocratic families etc.
It definitely had nothing to do with a group of merchant being granted a monopoly for trade and allowed to essentially pirate and plunder anything and any ship that sailed without their approval.

>>18543657
Capitalism isn't ideology (saying opposite is Marxist brainrot).

Capitalism existed throughout whole history of human civilization and will be exists in the future. Marx's theory is just typical for 18-19th centuries utopian shit according to which people would work for free, but no one would have responsibility for anything.

People are hierarchical cruel monkeys. Our brains, subconscious habit and urges derived from stone age and absolutely haven't changed.

Any attempts to build utopian paradise (fascist, communist, anarchist, etc) will inevitably reduce to oligarchic regime with different (depending on country) degrees of authoritarianism.

Did Marx ever use the term Capitalism or think of it as an ideology? He wrote a critic of capital, not capitalism.

>>18544072
No it hasn’t, capitalism is simply when labor is based on firms whose sole existence is directed towards profit and accumulation (in opposition to feudalism where it is based on land, and on socialism where it is socially based).

Historically, every social group apart from merchants reduced work to a minimum and only worked what was needed to sustain their existence. Primitive tribes only work for their survival, feudal nobles only worked to keep their lavish lifestyle and fiefdoms running, whilst capitalist firms always attempt to maximize their profits

File: brainlet28.png (79 KB, 512x512)

79 KB PNG

>>18544072
>Capitalism existed throughout whole history of human civilization and will be exists in the future
By which you mean parasitical rulers, their greedy sycophants and organized slavery have existed throughout all of human history.

>>18544161
In Bronze Age, private individuals owned massive estates, granaries, and slave workshops. Private merchants, for example, ran copper supply chains, literally critical military infrastructure of the era, entirely for private profit.

>>18544179
By which you mean greedy merchants were allowed to accumulate resources by parasitical rulers.

>>18544179
Yup, and the medieval times had corporations of merchants with some of them owning their own political fiefdoms.

However, a mode of production is not defined by how a minority within it performs economic acts, but by how the majority operates. Just like how the existence of non-profit co-ops exist under capitalism without making it socialism, for profit entities existed under feudalism without making it capitalism

>>18544212
>However, a mode of production is not defined by how a minority within it performs economic acts, but by how the majority operates
Exactly. And economic system should be measured not by "capitalism-socialism", but how much state owns in economy.

>>18544212
>>18544216
You're both brainlets. In the Bronze Age, a copper merchant was completely subservient to his king. His property was "private" only for as long as the state didn't exercise its "right" to appropriate it. His primary "market place" was the palace, where economic decisions were made in a top-down fashion by the ruling class. He couldn't operate at all without the king's consent and protection and was taxed up the ass according to the king's whims. In fact, the capitalism shill is so fucking stupid he even spells out the reason why his "private business" fantasy would never have been allowed: copper was critical for maintaining the state's monopoly on violence.

>>18544230
>His property was "private" only for as long as the state didn't exercise its "right" to appropriate it.
Wow, just like every modern state. For most recent example - Anthropic and its limitations by U.S. government.

>>18544277
Yes, just like every modern state, you mouth-breathing imbecile. Your "private property" fantasy is delusional even today, let alone in the fucking Bronze Age.

>>18544281
>Your "private property" fantasy is delusional
So, you agree with thesis that each man is just hairless ape who want biggest piece of banana and "private property" or "people's control over means of production" is intellectual masturbation from persons who hadn't work any day in their life?

>>18544289
I agree with the thesis that when mouth-breathing cretins like you talk about "capitalism" being "natural", what they actually mean is parasitical ruling classes, greedy collaborators and enslaved masses being endemic to civilization.

>>18544295
>enslaved masses
Anon, freed slaves don't build socialism or mankind brotherhood. They became slaveholders themselves.

>>18544299
I don't care about your retarded rhetorical waffling. Next time say what you actually mean (i.e. >>18544289) instead of hiding behind meaningless labels.

>>18544289
Why do you want to remain in the filth of the ape? Why should mankind not always strive towards something greater? You're talking about lack of will but can't even imagine rising above your base impulses lmao

>>18544314
>Why should mankind not always strive towards something greater?
Brainlet take. The "striving towards something greater" is what leads to permanent enslavement for most of the population in the first place.

>>18544319
... What? Where do you find examples of this in history? Because the last 500 years have seen a gradual, upwards trend in pretty much everything that falls under human liberty

>>18544330
>Where do you find examples of this in history?
Literally all of history is an example.

>Because the last 500 years have seen a gradual, upwards trend
Towards levels of enslavement that couldn't even be conceived of before. Future populations will consist of golems on enslaved on a genetic level and fundamentally incapable of conceiving of revolt.

>>18544216
>it should be measured by how much the state owns the economy
No ? Why would we even do this in the first place ? The whole point of using descriptors like capitalism or feudalism is to precise specific modes of production. You’re just coping because you tried the «capitalism is just natural bro» meme and failed the most basic comprehension of what the word means
You couldn’t even address anything I’ve said lmfao
>>18544289
Again, capitalism is not «people working to satisfy themselves». This is a vague senseless truism.
Capitalism is a specific system where economic agents maximize monetary profit for the sake of it, rather than performing labor for specific goals (like sustaining fiefdoms or having enough from slaves to emancipate yourself)

>>18544340
>Literally all of history is an example.
So you think we live in a more enslaved time, with mostly-equality across races, genders, and ages, than someone during, for example, the early Neolithic period, when wealth became so concentrated that only 1 in 17 males had offspring?

>Towards levels of enslavement that couldn't even be conceived of before. Future populations will consist of golems on enslaved on a genetic level and fundamentally incapable of conceiving of revolt.
Yes, we live in a precarious time where technological developments will completely determine the course of future history, but we can't be sure that these benefits will entirely be reaped by the elite (or that they'd even want to), and it also doesn't change the fact that the last 500 years leading up to today have in fact been a period of increasing liberty. Again, you talk so much about the power of will but you're ready to just lie down in the filth and die lol

>>18544352
>the early Neolithic period, when wealth became so concentrated
They were "striving towards something greater" than being nomadic hunter-gatherers.

>mostly-equality across races, genders, and ages
You're so profoundly enslaved you can't even reason about freedom anymore except by the meaningless terms of the social engineers who control every aspect of your life.

>we can't be sure that these benefits will entirely be reaped by the elite
Yes, we can be 100% sure.

>the last 500 years leading up to today have in fact been a period of increasing liberty.
That's impossible because you have exactly zero liberty.

>>18544363
>They were "striving towards something greater" than being nomadic hunter-gatherers.
Nope. Man was very much still enslaved by his base impulses during the Neolithic lmao. It requires a much more mature understanding of who we are in the first place before there can be any notion of rising above it (or a need to rise above it in the first place) and which simply didn't fucking exist until very recently

>That's impossible because you have exactly zero liberty.
Before we go any further, could you pull back the veil a bit on what this cabal is precisely? Leftwing globalists lol?

>>18544350
>The whole point of using descriptors like capitalism or feudalism is to precise specific modes of production
This marxist shit is outdated. Modern academic economy based exactly on scale "private-state" shares in country.
>Capitalism is a specific system where economic agents maximize monetary profit for the sake of it,
No one maximize monetary profit just for looking at gold. It's tool - it's being converted in power, influence and heritage for your family.
>>18544352
> it also doesn't change the fact that the last 500 years leading up to today have in fact been a period of increasing liberty
Your liberty based only on oil and kids in Africa who mine resources in Africa or kids in China who work on factories for pennies and bowl of rice.

>>18544408
I am well aware that it is anything but an equal increase in personal liberty across the globe. You also seem to have missed one of the questions

>>18543657
Capitalism is a form of mercantilism which was only even possible because modern banking and credit exist. Otherwise most people would be tied to some Lord and his land without ever actually owning what we call "capital".

>>18544415
>I am well aware
Than you should to understand that if your liberty based on cheap labor in shitholes that mankind doesn't true have
>gradual, upwards trend
>>18544421
>mercantilism
Mercantilism is primitive form of command economy.

>>18544429
You still haven't answered the other question btw

It's crazy that the commie troon actually stayed in the thread after OP left. Imagine being raped by a retard so much you monitor his thread

>>18544408
> Modern academic economy based exactly on scale "private-state" shares in country.
Not really, this is true perhaps for one or two subfields in econ. You’re also conflating comparison between 2 different capitalist models and historical epochs aswell. Saying that state-lead capitalism is different than liberal capitalism isn’t relevant to the question because they’re already operating within capitalism

> No one maximize monetary profit just for looking at gol
The modern firm doesn’t just stop producing after a certain amount of wealth because otherwise it can’t compete. At most, the owner might sell his shares but the company never ceases making profit until it becomes liquidated.

>>18544352
The last 500 have absolutely not lmfao. Serfdom was indeed abolished but slavery peaked in the mid 1800s iirc. You literally had colonial empires.

The core of Marxism is the "historical materialism". To them, economic activity is the result of mathematical expressions, and history is simply applying these expressions to real events in order to explain them. Therefore, history is 100% deterministic. The path taken by history is not due to chance, but a natural progression following natural laws of materialism. If you believe this, then it's very easy to believe in the Prophesy of Marxism: that communism is inevitable. It is the "next step" in the "natural progression" of history. Capitalism WILL fall because the divine calculations of Marx have decreed it to be so.

There's no such thing as "capitalism". The term was literally invented by Marxists as a vague catch-all label for "not communism" and its exact definition changes depending on who you're talking to.

File: ancaps.png (5 KB, 225x224)

5 KB PNG

>>18544623
> economic activity is the result of mathematical expressions
completely wrong, I don't even know where you got this idea from

>history is simply applying these expressions to real events in order to explain them
completely wrong, societies changes because class conflict upheaves the pre-existing order

>history is 100% deterministic
completely wrong, in fact, he developed a critique of hegel and left-hegelians because he opposed teleologistic readings
"History does nothing, it possesses no immense wealth, it wages no battles. It is man, real, living man who does all that"

>but a natural progression following natural laws of materialism
completely wrong, there is no "laws" of materialism. In fact it's the whole point that there aren't.
The closests we have are Engels "laws" of the dialectic but these are not about history and observations about causes natural change. And even then, most marxists irl don't take these seriously and view rigid diamat as problematic

>Prophesy of Marxism: that communism is inevitable.
also wrong, the only reason why it seems like so in the manifesto and in certain letters was because they were written in 1840s during times of revolution, where Marx believed that the new orders would be abolished

>Capitalism WILL fall because the divine calculations of Marx have decreed it to be so.
and... wrong again, Marx made a few "calculations" about capitalism. Some of them were true, while some weren't. In any case, the role they occupy is to show how capitalism keeps accentuating class antagonisms. They're don't "inevitably" lead to class conflict

I genuinely don't understand what inspires people like you to just hop online and write utterly wrong things. It's a bizarre hobby that I've quite frankly never understood. It's the equivalent of going online to say "mhmm guys did you notice, the sky is green today!"

>>18544429
>Mercantilism is primitive form of command economy.
Maybe if you're a lolbert who thinks any amount of government involvement is full blown Marxism.

>>18543657
The Marxist view is that society will inevitably progress towards socialism and communism, it's just a matter of whether you fight to delay it or to speed it up.

>>18543657
>why do communists want to completely demolish capitalism and install their own artificial and highly theoretical economic system
The gist of it is they believe there is supposed to be something that bridges the present with the prophesized classless, stateless, warlordless (good luck with that combination lol) future they call communism. This, they call socialism. But, it turns out no one knows what the fuck this socialism thing is supposed to be in practice. The most common answer so far is the Stalinist thing where you do an anti-capitalist tantrum by seizing private property collectivization etc etc. The tldr genuinely is do whatever is the opposite of the capitalism bogeyman even if your own theory says the given culture is not capitalistic to begin with. The second most common is social democracy, but after 100 years socdems that still believe in communism have developed zero answers on how can social democracy ever pave the road into communism, other than hard left converts to stalinism. Thinkering with tax rates for the umpteenth time sure aint it.The third most common is to pay lip service to communist theory but do asian tiger style hypercapitalism irl.

>>18544697
Sure just ignore all the autistic labor theory of value garbage and how he applied it to "class struggle" as an explanation for history. Disingenuous marxist rat.

>also wrong, the only reason why it seems like so in the manifesto and in certain letters
So in other words, it's not wrong, and you make endless apologetics to wriggle out of it like you everything else, cretin. You vomit all these words to accuse others of lies when you do nothing but speak in deceit.

>>18544752
Christians have the exact same approach to the Day of Judgement. Truly the opiate of the masses.

>>18544847
>the LTV as an explanation of history
Lmfao wtf are you even saying ? You’re just throwing around buzzwords because you don’t understand anything that you’ve written. This reads like a child that tries sounding smart by using words he saw on TV but doesn’t understand

> So in other words, it's not wrong, and you make endless apologetics
It is wrong. Were you never taught in school that it’s important to analyze works within specific context ?
But even if we use your logic that Marx was writing a teleology, why is it that he criticized those historicism in the Holy Family ? Why did he abandon such theory later ? Why did he criticize Bauer and Hegel for doing so ? Why did he put an emphasis in his historical analysis of unpredictable class behaviors ?
Now I’ll admit that there is the althusserian reading, but it’s still very far from what you’re positing and beyond that it’s obvious that you wouldn’t know this

> You vomit all these words to accuse others of lies
You never answered my question : why is it that you go online only to lie ? I just don’t understand the fun in it. Is it some kind of fetish ?