Capatilism is Objectively Superior to any other form of Governace.

[zazen]

Lol so much binary thinking. The world isn’t as simple as capitalism  vs communism. That was a peculiar reaction to Western feudalism that distorts human traits (individual gain vs communalism) and totalizes the system to bend to one principles over another without any nuance or complexity. Both are inhuman or end up inhumane. 

Non-Western civilizations had commerce, wealth accumulation, and contracts - but were disciplined by a higher authority when they grew too powerful. Capital itself was never the organising principle.

The kind of capitalism that came out of the West was a much needed escape hatch from feudalism. But that creates and is potentially now creating a techno fuedal scenario where capital escapes the people - because when capital no longer needs labour (AI, automation) - how does labour (all of us peasants) obtain capital?

Capital and property rights as its pre-requisite became sacred in the Western psyche because it literally was the escape hatch from a rigid feudalistic aristocracy that kneecapped upward mobility. This is why libertarianism, capitalism and communism emerged from the West in particular - but shouldn’t be universalised as if they are the global solution. A European family civil war became a global Cold War of retarded ideaologies that bring lopsided results.

The West separated the state from church and monarchy but didn’t so cleanly from capital - and now capital cannibalises the system and commons. The reason it works better in Scandinavia is because instead of a loop where capital is taxed and re-invested into society - it’s funnelled out the system. Smaller, culturally cohesive societies keep the social contract intact - they see tax collection as an investment rather than taking something from “me” the “sovereign individual”.

Also, the wealthy don’t pay tax in proportion to what they own or extract from society - they pay tax on the income they choose to declare. This isn’t malice but simply incentive - which is why the system itself needs a redesign - but that takes a cultural shift where capital isn’t the apex value.

Check this: 

 

[Schizophonia]

13 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

Ok Willy! You win the argument! I admit my ideological defeat! 

Nothing will prevent you, will it?

(Got that, Willy - Will it?)

 

Willy's always right 

Edited 1 hour ago by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

13 hours ago, Elliott said:

Everyone can be a boss, everyone can have their own business.

No because the vast majority of works involves collaboration.

 

[Schizophonia]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Truly nothing better than this system has yet been invented. Marxists have no clue how to replace this system with something better.

You talk about truth all the time, only to finally declare that you don't like to debate and say things you imagine in the shower: look at your Karma.

 

There is a ton of marxist literature, theorists if you wish it (Marx himself, Engel, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Lukash, Gramsci, Althusser...)

[zazen]

4 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Sure if capitalism existed in America. It doesn't. Corporatism does.

Sure if you live at the top.
The middle's comfortable.
If you are the bottom, where more people reside, its one of the more inferior forms of government.

Its end state is corportism or worse kleoptocracy and now techno feudalism.

3 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Will it devolve into kleptocracy? It depends how much money Elon and others like him accumulate. Will countries have any agency if he gets enough? Some don't already

Spot on here. This is the thing - we still view power dynamics as nation state vs nation station rather than as private capital that has outgrown the nation state itself and is in conflict with it, even as that nation state goes up against other nation states. Our analysis of geopolitics is outdated if we only look at national interest - because now there are private a-national, trans-national interests who use the nation state as a platform for their own interests. This is why many people feel dissonance, disillusionment  and confusion and question ''why don't our elites or political class serve us any longer''.

The fundamental thing is to have state capacity that checks this power and disciplines it. But the liberal reflex to this level of state capacity and intervention is seen as ''authoritarian overreach'' and fear of the slippery slope leading towards a tyrannical state. So we exist on the edges with our solutions (communism vs capitalism) rather than in a healthy middle.

As I mentioned in my comment on the top of this page: the underlying social contract that justified capitalism has been broken. We have private empires being built on public scaffolding - with the public no longer sharing in those returns or riches. That's because we have a funnel vs a loop - to put it simply.

A healthy functional system or a loop enforcing the social contract would be - the public creates the conditions for growth = private sector innovates and builds wealth = wealth circulates back into the public sphere through wages, taxes, and reinvestment.

The funnel that has taken its place instead is - society funds the platform = private actors monetise it = capital exits the system = the commons decays =  capital gains more leverage and consolidates its gains by influencing and gaming the system ie the state (lobbying, regulatory capture, revolving door etc). We seprated churhc from state but not capital from state. And the same way we have brain drain from developing countries, we have a similar sort of resource drain (wealth exiting or existing out of state reach) in developed countries that stalls societal level up lift. 

''True Communism'' much like “True Capitalism” can never be implemented in their purest forms by a human nature that isn’t 100% pure. Communism demands we not be greedy for the sake of community (the commune) and assumes others will fend for us - capitalism demands we be greedy enough to fend for ourselves and that doing so will have a trickle down effect on those less able to compete with us. Communism throws a net on talent (suffocating innovation and growth), capitalism has no safety net for those with little to no talent.

Communism assumes the wealth it built off of capitalist mechanisms can then be sustained without those mechanisms. Capitalism assumes the goodwill of the people and market incentives are enough to protect against the accumulation of power by capitalists that can then undermine the public commons. Communism overestimates human goodwill and virtue, capitalism underestimates human greed and corruption. Neither survive contact with reality and are retarded Frankenstein caricatures of human nature.

Edited 27 minutes ago by zazen

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

5 hours ago, Elliott said:

If socialists would be half as smart as they say they are, they would beat capitalism. I don't mean 'the USSR would have won'. I mean Bernie Sanders would run 'BernRock' and it would be bigger than BlackRock, a big co-op that knocks out walmart and starbucks. 'Socialism' would only ever work as a bottom up movement, anarchy, yet the Socialists only try to work it top down. Socialists are liars(lie to themselves) and self-contradictory, they're tyrants in sheep's clothes.

How pernamently online or brainwashed by wokiesm one must be to really think anarcho socialism is a good idea. Oh yeah, people will one day be such selfless angels and there will be no need for an oppressive state nor capitalism LMAO. What are hierarchies, what's human nature, these are all just constructs bro!! LOOOL Totally not an absolute unfeasable nightmare. If that's not the perfect describtion for the phrase "You will not own anything and you'll be happy" coupled with nearly no IQ points and massive lack of life experience, then I don't know what is

[Entrepreneur]

24 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

No because the vast majority of works involves collaboration.

Every company I do work for here in the US utilizes numerous contractors to accomplish whatever needs to be done.   Many of these contractors are business owners performing work for the company, yet not direct employees of the company.    For example, a business wants to expand and add additional building space.   They hire a building contractor to accomplish it.   The building contractor hires an electrical contractor, a plumbing contractor, and HVAC contractor, a drywall contractor, and IT contractor, etc.   Often times, these individual contractors are tiny businesses themselves being operated by one person or small number of partners.   Some of these small contractors hire other small contractors.  For example, an IT contractor might do work for all of those other contractors.   You have massive amounts of collaboration without having your employees do the work.

Another example:  Here in the US it is common for salespeople to be independent contractors working with the companies they sell for.   Each salesperson is a one-person business.    They are responsible for doing everything for themselves that a business typically does for their employees - things like health insurance, income tax withholding, etc.   Yet they collaborate on the goal of maximizing sales for the company.   None of them are employees.    People collaborate as independent contractors, not just as employees.   And it is a far more efficient system of allocating labor.

[Schizophonia]

28 minutes ago, Entrepreneur said:

Every company I do work for here in the US utilizes numerous contractors to accomplish whatever needs to be done.   Many of these contractors are business owners performing work for the company, yet not direct employees of the company.    For example, a business wants to expand and add additional building space.   They hire a building contractor to accomplish it.   The building contractor hires an electrical contractor, a plumbing contractor, and HVAC contractor, a drywall contractor, and IT contractor, etc.   Often times, these individual contractors are tiny businesses themselves being operated by one person or small number of partners.   Some of these small contractors hire other small contractors.  For example, an IT contractor might do work for all of those other contractors.   You have massive amounts of collaboration without having your employees do the work.

Another example:  Here in the US it is common for salespeople to be independent contractors working with the companies they sell for.   Each salesperson is a one-person business.    They are responsible for doing everything for themselves that a business typically does for their employees - things like health insurance, income tax withholding, etc.   Yet they collaborate on the goal of maximizing sales for the company.   None of them are employees.    People collaborate as independent contractors, not just as employees.   And it is a far more efficient system of allocating labor.

That's called being a craftsman, it's like that all over the world and that's why they generally vote for the right.