you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ReeferMadness 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

If only. Everyone can acquire capital. Under capitalism everyone is equal.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

In Capitalism you must already have capital to gain more, or at the very least gain the favor of someone who already has it.

It's very rare in an entirely capitalist society to see someone go from a lowly worker to a member of the capitalist elite. It definitely happens, but it would happen a lot more in an economic system like Corporatism. (Which some people think is still Capitalism, but I see it as a syncretic ideology.)

Capitalism is definitely is not an equal society. Equality before the law cannot be present in a capitalist society, for the courts are influenced by greed. Furthermore, equality of opportunity cannot be achieved when everyone starts on a different playing field.

Meanwhile Socialism sacrifices true equality in the name of "equality of outcome," which is really just a fancy term for inequality. If someone who works hard gets the same reward as someone who doesn't work at all, that is inherently unequal.

We must reject all forms of Materialism — Capitalism and Socialism — and instead pursue a system of National Corporatism. We must devote ourselves not to greed and envy, but rather to the Nation. Only then shall true equality be possible. Only then shall the classes live in harmony.

[–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

In Capitalism you must already have capital to gain more

Bullshit. Get a job. Convince someone with money to invest in your startup. Provide someone a service that they are willing to pay you for.

It's very rare in an entirely capitalist society to see someone go from a lowly worker to a member of the capitalist elite.

Bullshit again. Capitalist societies have the HIGHEST class mobility. Rare is relative, and compared to everything else it is the least rare.

it would happen a lot more in an economic system like Corporatism.

Stop comparing real world results to fantasy results. Prove that you have a better system on a smaller scale with other people who believe what you believe. Don't make baseless claims because you imagine something is better and expect everyone to go along with it.

Capitalism is definitely is not an equal society.

Bullshit. The "inequality" you see is inequity and comes from the accrued gains of those who worked harder, smarter, and better. Society did not start when you were born. Advantages were earned.

Corruption exists, but it exists everywhere. Capitalism is least susceptible to corruption. It offers the most opportunity for success. And creates the environment for the most advancement.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

If you didn't say "bullshit" every other sentence, and pretend like it was some form of argument, perhaps you would appear more mature and adult-like, rather than rude and childish, but I digress.

Get a job.

Someone working at McDonald's will barely be able to survive, let alone start a business. The problem with Capitalism is that it requires everyone to own a business in order to be well-off — which is insanity!

And even those who do own businesses, many of them are treated as poorly as the Workers! Unless you're a CEO of a mega-corporation you might as well be trash in Capitalism.

Convince someone with money to invest in your startup

You literally — and perhaps intentionally — failed to include the part of the quoted sentence in which I say exactly that.

Provide someone a service that they are willing to pay you for.

Those who start-out with less capital are less capable of providing a service that one is willing to pay for — and even if they are, it won't be to a large extent, or perhaps even to the extent required to cover the costs of business.

Capitalist societies have the HIGHEST class mobility.

Even if it is — which is isn't: Corporatism would be better — the requirement for class mobility is absurd. We need different classes.

Stop comparing real world results to fantasy results.

The correct word is theoretical, and I would remind you that before Capitalism was tried it began as a theory — one which has led to the betterment of humanity, but has now become obsolete. It's time for a new theory to be tried.

Prove that you have a better system on a smaller scale with other people who believe what you believe.

That's the plan.

Don't make baseless claims because you imagine something is better

It's called a hypothesis, which is a key element of the scientific method. Before testing something one should formulate a hypothesis: an idea of what the results may look like.

The "inequality" you see is inequity and comes from the accrued gains of those who worked harder, smarter, and better.

Working-class people who work harder and better than CEOs and investors get paid much less. The stereotype that all Workers are inherently lazy and dumb, and that all Capitalists are inherently hard-working and lazy is a dangerous and severely incorrect prejudice.

The inequality I see is inequality of opportunity: the poor, although perhaps more able, are less capable due to a lack of capital. It's like giving a construction worker a single brick and telling him to build a whole house — he won't be able to do it, no matter how skilled he may be!

Corruption exists, but it exists everywhere.

That is true.

Capitalism is least susceptible to corruption.

When your entire economic system is based upon greed, don't be surprised when you get corruption. Socialism is inherently corrupt, but Capitalism is prone to becoming corrupt.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

If you didn't say "bullshit"...and pretend like it was some form of argument,

Bullshit. I always support my claims of bullshit. There is not one instance of unsupported denouncement of your bullshit.

The problem with Capitalism is that it requires everyone to own a business in order to be well-off

Bullshit. Capitalist societies have the highest standard of living, the largest middle class, and the highest average income. By any reasonable measure capitalism offers being "well off" to the most people.

The US was built on high paying manufacturing and mining jobs. Offshoring and the flooding of migrants is responsible for the suppression of middle class wages, not capitalism. The US was just as capitalist in the 1950's as it is today and that was the golden age of middle class living anywhere in the world.

Of course you could argue that open borders and free trade are capitalist because that is what big business wants, but there is nothing within capitalist societies that prevents strong borders and tariffs. The problem with low wages is globalization and you are unjustifiably blaming capitalism.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Bullshit. I always support my claims of bullshit.

So you're both immature and stubborn. Just using the word "incorrect" would be a world better — for your sake, of course: I don't lose anything from you embarrassing yourself.

Capitalist societies have the highest standard of living, the largest middle class, and the highest average income.

Of systems we've tried. Corporatism would be much better. Capitalism was the best system possible when it was first achieved — after decades of failure — but if you haven't noticed, it's been hundreds of years and not only has technology changed, but society along with it.

Offshoring and the flooding of migrants is responsible for the suppression of middle class wages, not capitalism.

Was it not the Capitalists who sent our jobs overseas? Was it not the Capitalists who closed-down our factories? Was it not the Capitalists who replaced American Workers with illegal immigrants? Was it not the Capitalists who betrayed America for China?

Capitalism is synonymous with offshoring and unchecked immigration! Capitalism is the pursue of material wealth above all else — above the Nation! In order to embrace true Nationalism, we must reject both Capitalism and Socialism, and devote ourselves to the betterment of our People!

there is nothing within capitalist societies that prevents strong borders and tariffs.

When your entire economic system is based around greed, don't be surprised when your brother sells you out to the foreigner.

The problem with low wages is globalization and you are unjustifiably blaming capitalism.

Capitalism is synonymous with Globalism. The Capitalists are the ones who want open borders and free trade! I'll refrain from repeating myself.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Of systems we've tried.

Of systems we've proven.

When your entire economic system is based around greed,

The system doesn't create greed. It is ever present and will be equally present in your fantasy world if you are ever unfortunate enough to create it. Blaming capitalism for greed demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of human nature and a totally naive and incorrect expectation for greed to be curable with policies. Capitalism acknowledges greed and is built to work around it and utilize it. It does not create it. It is not responsible for greed.

Capitalism is synonymous with Globalism

The very fact that globalism inherently includes all countries of all political frameworks proves you wrong.

The solution to problems within capitalism is to fix those problems, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The reality is that anti capitalism is a cult that is brainwashed into every college student for the last 30 years. That there are numerous alternatives proposed simply masks the underlying reality that you are all driven by an emotional coupling of every grievance to the power structure (which you identify as the government/rich and powerful people/oligarchs).

The evidence for this is the fact that most of the proposed alternatives can easily be implemented within capitalist societies, and yet the people pushing them don't. They are simply making those alternative proposals to justify attacking capitalism. Most communists don't live in communes. Most socialists don't work at co-ops.

You can be a communist in America and live by your own standards. You can't be free on a communist country and own your own business.

That is ultimately the greatest proof that this is the greatest way to live.

If your alternative requires you to attack capitalism with bullshit then your alternative is not better. The same way every smartphone that came out after the iPhone was advertised as the "iPhone killer" and inadvertently proved that they were all in fact inferior.

Capitalism is simply about freedom, and freedom is everything.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Of systems we've proven.

Something has to be tried to be proven, and you have to convince people before doing such.

Blaming capitalism for greed demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of human nature

Allowing human nature to remained unchecked makes us mere animals. Greed must be suppressed, as with lust, envy, and the rest.

Capitalism acknowledges greed and is built to work around it and utilize it

Which is the problem. We shouldn't reward people for taking what is not theirs, but rather encourage them to work for their slice of the pie.

The very fact that globalism inherently includes all countries of all political frameworks proves you wrong.

It doesn't include Nationalist countries, only Capitalist and Socialist ones, which reject the Nation in favor of Materialism.

The solution to problems within capitalism is to fix those problems

That's what Corporatism is: solving the problems of Capitalism, while retaining its benefits. Capitalism wasn't an entirely new system: it built upon the previous systems of Feudalism and Mercantilism.

The reality is that anti capitalism is a cult that is brainwashed into every college student for the last 30 years.

That's Marxism, not Corporatism. You can't lump everything an inch to the left of you as "basically Communism". Marxists actually hate Corporatists more than they hate Capitalists — for these ideologies are both materialist in nature.

most of the proposed alternatives can easily be implemented within capitalist societies

If you change Capitalism, then it's no longer Capitalism.

You can't be free on a communist country and own your own business.

That's true: Communism, and Socialism, is a dictatorship of Labor — and always devolves into a singularity of government control and corruption.

If your alternative requires you to attack capitalism with bullshit then your alternative is not better.

If you criticize anything I like, then you're wrong!

The same way every smartphone that came out after the iPhone was advertised as the "iPhone killer" and inadvertently proved that they were all in fact inferior.

I'd have to disagree with that, as a life-long Android user. The degree to which Apple controls your phone is a deal-breaker for me. I don't want to have to jail-break my phone just to download a politically incorrect app.

Capitalism is simply about freedom, and freedom is everything.

Capitalism is about freedom — but unchecked freedom is just as bad as unchecked authority! I know you aren't an Anarchist, so you can agree that there are certain limits to one's freedoms.

Corporatism is simple about the Nation, and the Nation is everything. The Nation, One Body.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Allowing human nature to remained unchecked makes us mere animals.

No, it makes us free men. Tyranny has never built a good society.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One who is not disciplined can never truly be free: for he is but a slave of his inner desires and unable to properly forge his own path.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We shouldn't reward people for taking what is not theirs, but rather encourage them to work for their slice of the pie.

That is what we do. Capitalism is not theft. That is the anti capitalism brainwashing talking.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you manipulate people into giving you their money — or charge exorbitant amounts for a resource over which you have a monopoly — then you did not rightfully require what is yours.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If you criticize anything I like, then you're wrong!

Strawman. I can make an argument for capitalism that doesn't require attacking anything else. If your proposal is built on "this is bad therefore that" it is built on... wait for it.. Bullshit!

One thing being bad does not prove that an alternative is better. That is a fallacy.

You can compare two things and say "look at how 1 tackles poverty better than 2". But that is not the same as saying "1 is bad at tackling poverty therefore 2 is better". And "theories" are not things you can validly compare to reality.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Strawman. I can make an argument for capitalism that doesn't require attacking anything else.

Your whole argument was that any system that criticizes Capitalism is inherently bad.

One thing being bad does not prove that an alternative is better.

That is true, however, an alternative could be better, thus should be sought. Perhaps there will never be a proper alternative, but we can't know that for certain until everything has been tried.

You can compare two things and say "look at how 1 tackles poverty better than 2". But that is not the same as saying "1 is bad at tackling poverty therefore 2 is better".

What I'm saying is that "1 tackles poverty better than 2, but 3 could be better than both."

And "theories" are not things you can validly compare to reality.

If everyone refused try Capitalism — or stopped once it failed — then we would never have Capitalism, thus would be stuck in a system of Feudalism.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You can have your nation. What is stopping you? Tie a few logs together, grab your buddies and head out to sea on your own floating island nation.

That is the purest form of you getting exactly what you say you want. If it doesn't appeal to you then that means what you actually want is a lot more than what you admitt to.

You want to control land others own, use the resources others own. All free of charge of course. With nothing more (presumably) to justify it all other than "it's not fair that they own it, it should belong to everyone [me]."

In this way (and many others) you are far more similar to socialists/marxists/colectivists than you care to admit.

The best form government maximizes freedom. That includes reducing as much as possible the tyranny of powerful and wealthy citizens. That excludes throwing every inequality under the umbrella of tyranny.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can have your nation. What is stopping you? Tie a few logs together, grab your buddies and head out to sea on your own floating island nation.

A Nation is a People. Unless the entirety of Anglo-America up and moves, then I'll stay where I am.

You want to control land others own, use the resources others own.

I want America to control her own land and resources, instead of paying fiefs to foreigners and the banks.

With nothing more (presumably) to justify it all other than "it's not fair that they own it, it should belong to everyone [me]."

This is a strawman argument: I never said property should be collectivized, or even that there should be a command economy.

A key element of Corporatism is both private property and a market economy — albeit not a free market.

In this way (and many others) you are far more similar to socialists/marxists/colectivists than you care to admit.

So by protecting private property and promoting a market economy I might as well be a Communist? I though those where capitalist ideals, but I guess not.

The best form government maximizes freedom.

I disagree. Pure freedom does nothing but degenerate a Nation.

That includes reducing as much as possible the tyranny of powerful and wealthy citizens.

Which can only be done through Corporatism, Distributism, or some other form of third positionism.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Corporatism would be better

Fantasy economics is fantasy.

It's time for a new theory to be tried.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. Go fix North Korea. The probability that you will make things worse is a million times higher than the probability that you will take the greatest society to ever exist and make it better. Especially when you don't even understand what proof of concept is.

Working-class people who work harder and better than CEOs and investors get paid much less.

Yeah, you missed the point. If I build an automated farm and then lounge around being fed for free I deserve it, I earned it, I built it. My neighbor who tills with a hoe and plants seeds individually works much harder and will always claim he is smarter too. When I leave my farm to my kids that is my right as a free man. That is what it means to have accrued gains. My kids may be lazy morons, but I built that farm for them.

I made my society better by inventing the automated farm. If you take away my freedom to invent and benefit from my inventions and investments, and benefit my kids you will be left with a society of morons who starve whenever the weather is bad.

As far as there may be inventors who are unable to invent due to poverty, that is a tiny minority of people. Find a better way to empower them than destroying society with socialist bullshit. You can't give everyone free money and d expect it to not be squandered. One in a million would actually make it grow.

Welfare states create welfare queens not inventors. That is just the cold hard truth.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Fantasy economics is fantasy.

The correct word is theoretical, and I would remind you that before Capitalism was tried it began as a theory — one which has led to the betterment of humanity, but has now become obsolete. It's time for a new theory to be tried.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Tell that to the millions living in poverty — or those who have to go without the medical treatment they need — or the patriots who's way of life is being destroyed by the banks.

Capitalism is broken. Not for you — not for the elite — but it is for the People.

If I build an automated farm and then lounge around being fed for free I deserve it, I earned it

Yes, but most CEOs didn't do that, or at the very least not most investors — don't forget that most of them are just born into rich families and throw their money behind people doing the real work.

My neighbor who tills with a hoe and plants seeds individually works much harder

But he didn't work more efficiently, which is what you did in this scenario. The disparity in wealth makes sense in these circumstances — because you genuinely contributed to humanity, rather than just cutting corners and manipulating Consumers like most mega-corporations do.

My kids may be lazy morons, but I built that farm for them.

Yes, and they're entitled to that, but they aren't entitled billions and billions of dollars, with which they use to bribe politicians and kill small businesses.

If you take away my freedom to invent and benefit from my inventions and investments, and benefit my kids you will be left with a society of morons who starve whenever the weather is bad.

If you take out the "whenever the weather is bad" part, that's basically Communism.

What I want is Corporatism, which solved many problems present in Capitalism, while avoiding the pitfalls of state control of the economy.

As far as there may be inventors who are unable to invent due to poverty, that is a tiny minority of people.

Inventors, maybe, but innovators: they are who we need, and who are unable to realize their full potential under dictatorships of Capital and Labor.

Find a better way to empower them than destroying society with socialist bullshit.

Like making the class system harmonious rather than chaotic, and allowing the various organs of the Nation to work together towards the betterment of our People. The only way to save American from Socialism is the embrace Corporatism. Dictatorships of Capital and Labor are unsustainable, it's time for a true Democracy.

Welfare states create welfare queens not inventors

Where did I propose a welfare state? Or perhaps you just assumed that because I disagree with you on an issue that I must be the polar opposite of you in every conceivable way?

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Tell that to the millions living in poverty

Capitalism is not responsible for poverty. Once again poverty is the lowest in capitalist societies. I am for social safety nets. But they need to be limited. Poverty can not be eliminated. Claims to the contrary are bullshit.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Capitalism is not responsible for poverty.

Even though we waste enough resources to properly take care of our People, and the fact that a small handful of Liberal elite control the vast majority of wealth, while the vast majority of people are left with but a sliver of the pie.

poverty is the lowest in capitalist societies

It would be lower in a corporatist society.

I am for social safety nets. But they need to be limited.

Yes, they do. The welfare state only hurts the economy in the end with its perverse incentives.

Poverty can not be eliminated.

Relatively-speaking: no. Objectively-speaking: yes. If we pursue economic growth that benefits everyone, rather than just the billionaires, then we can achieve a society in which everyone's basic needs are met — even if not surpassed.