Fuck Capitalism

Capitalism, capitalism. How do I loath thee? Let me count the ways….

Few would argue with the conclusion that greed, selfishness, ruthlessness, and egocentrism are qualities that all of us humans possess, to varying degrees of course. Equally compelling is the argument that nearly all of us are capable of acting with kindness, compassion, justice, honesty, generosity, and empathy. Yet despite the sweeping epidemic of unnecessary suffering caused by torrential waves of avarice, self-centeredness, and brutality, our filthy moneyed elite, their well-compensated sycophants, and countless millions of deeply inculcated members of the working class defend the sacred cow of capitalism with the zeal of the Sicarii. What a brilliant way to conduct human affairs and organize ourselves socioeconomically! Not only do we embrace the inevitability of our human frailties; we willfully and perpetually embrace a system that ensures that the worst elements of the human psyche will predominate AND which amply rewards those who act the most reprehensibly.

One of the idiocies advanced as a logical argument to justify the continued existence of the abomination of capitalism is that while it may be flawed, it is still better than any alternative. If capitalism is the best humanity can do, it's time to cash in our chips and leave Earth to our non-human animal counter-parts. They may not have opposable thumbs and formidably sized frontal lobes, but at least they don't engage in the systematic destruction of themselves and the rest of the planet. However, before we act too hastily and engage in mass seppuku, perhaps it would make more sense to implement a mass reorganization of our socioeconomic structure, basing the new paradigm on far more egalitarian, sustainable, democratic, just, and rational principles. Or we could just keep destroying each other and the fucking planet….

Perhaps most disturbing of all is the way in which capitalism's relentless advocates have managed to bamboozle billions of people into equating it with democracy. Diabolical to its core, but sheer genius nonetheless. Concluding that capitalism and democracy are somehow synonymous is a bit like saying that Dick Cheney and the milk of human kindness relate to one another in even a very remote fashion. (Have you seen the myriad pictures of his evil grimaces floating around the Internet? Despicable creature that he is, he doesn't even attempt to mask his malevolence). Capitalism is naturally hierarchical, authoritarian, and brutal. Corporations, the legal vehicles for the plutocracy to maximize their profits while minimizing liability, are structured as tyrannies. What the hell is democratic about dog eat dog, law of the jungle, and every man for himself? Besides, if we uber-capitalists here in the United States are truly "democratic," and we "elected" a depraved idiot like W. to what is ostensibly the most powerful position in the world, what does that say about us?

wow no one has ever blamed everything on capitalism before, you're so edgy

>>2
Wow no one has ever blamed everything on socialism before, you're so edgy.

>>3
Meh all won't never acquit nothing above the state of being anti-social and non-partisan afterwards, I am not very drôle.

I don't think that either Capitalism or socialism by themselves will solve our problems.  The genius of Capitalism is that by and large Capitalism goes hand in hand with innovation.  The socialist economic system doesn't encourage invention in the same way.  Norway and Sweden don't produce new and improved anything.  They didn't invent cellular technology and certainly didn't put them into the hands of even the poorest people on the planet.  Socialism does lower the inequality of rich and poor -- it's a fundemental trade off though -- less growth, fewer innovations, and much more stability.  That's Norway on a stick.  Not much of a growing economy, but no one starves.  In Capitalism, the winners and losers are farther apart, but the system produces more in the way of economic growth and new solutions to old problems. 

Capitalism gave us the computer age, the automobile, cell phones, and jet airplanes.  Socialism gave us a national health plan, Social Security, Welfare, and a stable society.

Communism as Marx imagine it is the only solution.
Socialism is not communism as in real communism there is no money.

posting on an image board that would not exist without capitalism


just sayin

>>6
Hah. Good one. However, Communism is always a good punchline to a joke.

>>1
Your post is so full of retardation i cant even begin to understand where you would get such ideas....oh wait you are a sociology major arent you?

Oh and when i refer to "capitalism" i mean a FREE MARKET with no STATE CONTROLS whatsoever, what we have here today in the US is not CAPITALISM but a quasi form of it more properly called CORPORATISM where big buisnesses deal with politicians of the STATE to put up barriers for entry so that they can dominate the market and abuse their oligopoly position.

People love to equate CAPITALISM and CORPORATISM so much because they never take the time to understand it and just decide to hate all forms of markets. Or if people do understand the difference they argue that it would lead to corporatism anyways.

I would never put democracy and free markets in the same category because democracy is the majority imposing their PREFERENCES on the minority and the minority having to pay for the enforcement of the majorities preferences. Democracy is "mob absolutism" its not civilized it is barbaric and brutal.
Democracy is not sustainable, there will be people that "exploit" it.

"Similarly, if some company proclaimed itself the creator, interpreter and enforcer of law, taxes, prisons, defense, regulations, and managed the elections, we would call this company psychotic and pay them no mind. But when the company called “The United States Federal Government” does this, then it’s not only okay but a somber service crucial to civilization itself. And of course companies that are connected to the state can engage in arbitrary actions as well. Sometimes even more arbitrary because they don’t even have to deal with the rather limited regulation that elections sometimes provide. So a company keeps plugging candidates that run, keep giving them money, and lose because of it. Then the company pays the next candidate, and does this over and over, and everyone gets butthurt over this lulzy exploit hack of democracy. I think it’s funny, though statism is kind of a joke to me at this point, and democracy a children’s game. Arbitrary meaning disconnected from the demands of society, which is to say statism is antisocial."

Free markets at least let people choose whether they want to interact with it or not, democracy forces the minority to abide by the majority's choice and sustain it as well.

>>9
links to vids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqVo9DivUbA&feature=related
(That Ol' Democracy Shtick!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eNrfDFFvME
(Why Democracy Fails)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAOjAhwJvWQ
(Democracy is Mob Absolutism)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxVD_Z2-Czg
(Anti Statism at light speed part 1)

Hooray for bullshit pathos.  And hooray for plagiarism. 

Let me ask you--what's wrong with the ability of people to trade with one another without restriction?  What makes you think that you are entitled to what you haven't earned?  What makes you think that somehow the same "worst elements of the human psyche" are those who produce a product that wouldn't survive without patronage, rather than the elected officials who would enforce the rules of your government of "far more egalitarian, sustainable, democratic, just, and rational principles".

Principles aren't enforced at the point of a gun.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't charity.  The fact that you think that life is some kind of a video game where you get to pick where the resources go is ridiculous.  People either succeed because they are damn good at what they do--or because they have friends in government.  And your solution is to give more power to government?  And don't tell me "there is no government".  Who stops the shopkeeper from opening up shop?

The success of your neighbor doesn't prohibit you from succeeding.  Your victim mentality does.

I don't even know why I've responded to this.  This essay is a gut-wrenching vacuum of any semblance of economic understanding, and has all the angst one expects of a spoiled teenager.

>>10
Democracy works when authority does not extend beyond consent.

>>12
Consent of whom? the majority?
Sure it can "work" but i don't think its sustainable in the long run.
Democracy is basically "soft" communism because the underlying assumption of communism is that things are communally owned and can be "voted" on.
The US has fulfilled the 10 planks of the communist party to some extent so it wouldn't be to far as to say the US communist to some degree, although most "left" winged people still are upset that corporatism still exists.

Now if you mean breaking consent by constitution then all i can say is that i never agreed to the "constitution" and the constitution gives unlimited power to the federal government because it is not precise on how it is defined and because of that people who define it a certain way are no different than those who define it a different way.

*US is communist*

Fixing: US is corporate communist

Capitalism now exists in a deep container of pure fuck.

The free market works. Life goes on.

>>13
Consent of whom?
Individuals.


I'm sure you realize that living with other people means that you have to make compromises and that the point is to analyze whether compromises are justified. The idea that only those affected by a communal decision should have a say is a pretty straightforward concept that springs from this, so someone on the other side of the country has no say about issues that they are not affected by, like a local trash disposal ordinance in your area, but they do have a say if the issue affects both of you, like national traffic laws. Any practicalities of this can just be factored in as administrative efficiency, for the same reason society assumes everyone consents to free speech protected by the constitution society has reason to centralize things like railway gauges because the expense of holding a referendum on every tiny little technical detail in every county would exceed any benefits.

If you were rich, you wouldn't be complaining.

And also, wordiness cannot fix the crying shame of our country.  Caping the president's ass can!!! >8

>>18
You don't get me, democracy is a specific type of system where any majority can impose their preference on others. I understand that compromises may need to be made but that should be the individual's choice to make not the society's. Now this is different from an intersubjective consensus where people would only support things they had to pay without the support/subsidizing and diffusing costs of enforcing said things.
Lets take the drug war, lets say 60% of a society support a "drug war" and 40% either oppose it or don't care.
Under a democracy the "drug war" would be implemented and sustained by 100% of society being taxed for it.
Under a intersubjective consensus the 60% would also have to pay the 40%s share of the costs thus skyrocketing the price for enforcement of each individual and probably leading to further abandonment of paying the drug war thus leading to even higher prices for people to pay for enforcement until it can not be sustained anymore.

Centralization can happen in a free market as i would assume all credit card companies would have the same card size and shoe companies have the same shoe sizes.

Also i dont "have" to make compromises although they might be in my best interest but i should be free to associate with who i wish or not at all.

>>21
Serious question. (And answer honestly please.) How old are you?

>>22
20

>>23
You do know that the US has a constitution and checks and balances to make sure that things don't get too out of hand, right? It somehow is also able to function even during these Orwellian PATRIOT ACT times. Did you not have social studies class in fourth grade or something?

Where's the word capitalism in the US Constitution again? I see the words "union" and "welfare" though.

>>25
"Union" and "welfare" had different meanings back in the 18^th century, though.

>>24
Because those checks and balances prevented unnecessary wars, bailouts, most victimless crimes from being implemented, forcing people to pay for things they dont want and much more fuckups.

I did have a class in social studies in 4th grade in fact i excelled at it because i used to see war as any indoctrinated child would; A RIGHTEOUS CRUSADE TO STOP TYRANNY WHILE WE TYRANNIZE TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL!!! With me only focusing on the former.

The part where we differ is that i grew up and saw the inherent inconsistencies of its vagueness that give it unlimited power.
If you want to call me young? Fine but discrediting what people say due to their age sounds like the same type of tactics people faced when trying to advocate atheism, and look where it is now.

>>27
Because those checks and balances prevented unnecessary wars, bailouts, most victimless crimes from being implemented, forcing people to pay for things they dont want and much more fuckups.
This is an aspect of not having a more democratic way of dealing with such things. That's not from any failure of checks and balances, nor the constitution itself (though, the "Necessary and Proper" clause should probably be amended or removed completely with a constitutional amendment, since it seems to be used as a lazy way of declaring something legally constitutional without much effort). Implementing the National Initiative reforms (http://ni4d.us/) would be a real nice step forward as well.
The people in the US (like yourself) seem to have this idea that "Hey, since things aren't working as they should, I'll just swing all the way down the slippery slope and advocate "antistatism", "libertarianism", "anarchism", etc." Now they have two problems.

>>21
Under that arrangement freeloaders will just vote no to everything to avoid paying tax and the burden of maintaining society would fall on the best people in society, obviously this would cause some complications, I'm sure there are some situations where it is the best system but then there are some situations where regular democracy is best. Your argument would be far more compelling if it were directed at proving that certain things we take for granted as practical necessities are in fact not necessary at all and only perpetuated by politicians as being so, whilst at the same time confirming that certain things are necessary and the environment the system is in, I like to consider myself open minded and I agree that cannabis should be legalized and treated similar to alcohol but when this is combined with throwing away democracy like a baby with the bathwater it doesn't really help communicate things.

You don't have to make compromises but you do if you want to live and cooperate with other people, the idea I mentioned would not completely eliminate tyranny of the majority but it would reduce it, you would be able to move to an area where the local government has legalized cannabis if it meant that much to you. Obviously further analysis is required, I'm not trying to prove anything here just trying to elaborate on the situation a bit more, at the moment I have 2 perspectives on "what is best" being a practical minded perspective which accepts that I cannot make sense of the world and so should do what seems outwardly reasonable and secondly a theoretical perspective where I'm trying to piece together what I can and deduce what is best based on my model of the real world. You seem to have taken the theoretical route too far and failed to factor in your own limitations.

>>29
The free rider problem is too complex to discuss here, but there are many theories on how it can be solved from ostracism to forcing people out of the society. The "love it or leave it" argument does work in a stateless society because the legitimacy of the ownership is almost not arbitrary at all, homesteading, i would think, would be a standard or one of the standards on whether people deem your ownership as legitimate.

Im not saying we can/should eliminate the "tyranny of the majority", all im saying is that democracy SWELLS that power and the best way to limit it would be stateless societies.

There are some examples of stateless societies so its not as theoretical as you think but if you desire heavy duty empiricism then for the most part you will not find it but answer me this: Did we have government before religion and ideologies were implemented?

>>28
This is an aspect of not having a more democratic way of dealing with such things.
That's the problem, it depends on a "democratic" method so it can work, the problem is that the people in power have no incentive to abide by the rules so your "system" has an exploit where people can lie, cheat, and steal after they have attained power, sure they cant go too far but as long as its behind closed doors their power is limitless.

The people in the US (like yourself) seem to have this idea that "Hey, since things aren't working as they should, I'll just swing all the way down the slippery slope and advocate "antistatism", "libertarianism", "anarchism", etc." Now they have two problems.
No most of us know that the US has NO legitimate ownership and authority over the things it claims to have control over. Most people cant get this and we have to resort to a more "practical" means of convincing people for people who want an answer to every question like >>29 and even then when we prove that the state has not met the standards they themselves try to use to derail Anti Statism they fall back on the empiricism of the status quo which is a total non answer.
Its not a slippery slope to advocate anti statism because most if not all the things the state values has yet to be achieved in this mess of a society.

Did we have government before religion and ideologies were implemented?
Actually instead of "government" i meant a state.

Since when does socialism mean "economic statism"?

The ancient Egyptian pharaohs personally ran the economy of their land, does that make them socialists?

Fuck, fuck! What is wrong with you people? Capitalism is based on the idea of private ownership, which automatically means a society of laws and regulations that protect private property! Private property is the very core of capital! We are rapidly losing that society (from the standpoint of the individual) and as such, we are rapidly losing individual capitalism. So we are only heading for socialism, as best expressed through corporate socialism.

Even Libertarians generally don't believe in anarchic principles like no government. The modern capitalists (corporate socialists) believe in no government for themselves, but many intrusive and restrictive levels of government for you. There are no real anarchists. The statists are the real problem.

>>30
That's the problem, it depends on a "democratic" method so it can work, the problem is that the people in power have no incentive to abide by the rules so your "system" has an exploit where people can lie, cheat, and steal after they have attained power, sure they cant go too far but as long as its behind closed doors their power is limitless.
It seems to work well in multi-party states, especially ones with proportional representation. I don't think any of that will ever be implemented in the US, at least Federally, but at the state level, that would be nice. With just a two-party system, the politics of everything doesn't evolve past the politics of a fifth grade classroom.
No most of us know that the US has NO legitimate ownership and authority over the things it claims to have control over.
This is your only point that I would agree with you on.
Its not a slippery slope to advocate anti statism because most if not all the things the state values has yet to be achieved in this mess of a society.
It most certainly is, because it views things in only black and white, where the reality is many shades of gray, not to mention that it completely ignores the goods things that the state has done for society, or at least, facilitated for it.

I've heard much MUCH better arguments against a total free market than Upton Sinclair. His writing rots the brain.

It most certainly is, because it views things in only black and white, where the reality is many shades of gray, not to mention that it completely ignores the goods things that the state has done for society, or at least, facilitated for it.

Okay so that must mean i should be an agnostic too, to be logically consistent then, because if i reject the state and the belief in religion then i am "slippery sloping", so i should be a minimalist and not be an absolutist. So i should be for a small amount of rape instead of no rape at all for me to not slippery slope. Your logic is what keeps the state barely breathing from its inevitable death.

The state will fall in our lifetime and there's nothing anybody can do to change that.

>>34
Oh and its not a "slippery slope" i think the term you're looking for is "false dichotomy".

Okay so that must mean i should be an agnostic too, to be logically consistent then
Ideally, you should aim to be atheist, but this topic is about government (or critiquing "statism"), not religion.
so i should be a minimalist and not be an absolutist. So i should be for a small amount of rape instead of no rape at all for me to not slippery slope. Your logic is what keeps the state barely breathing from its inevitable death.
This is exactly the "black and white" thinking I was alluding to earlier. Even the article criticizing Upton Sinclair's book admits that the meatpacking companies in Chicago were for government regulations. As for the "state barely breathing from its inevitable death", you must mean the US government, as it is on its way towards breaking up like the former Soviet Union.

>>38

Ideally, you should aim to be atheist, but this topic is about government (or critiquing "statism"), not religion.

I was applying your reasoning to a similar situation and statism and religion do share a lot of parallels as well.

This is exactly the "black and white" thinking I was alluding to earlier. Even the article criticizing Upton Sinclair's book admits that the meatpacking companies in Chicago were for government regulations.

You forget that these businesses benefit from having regulations as it puts up barriers to entry for smaller companies.

As for the "state barely breathing from its inevitable death", you must mean the US government, as it is on its way towards breaking up like the former Soviet Union.

Statism is a general idea, it encompasses any political ideology that gives a person(s) the perceived legal right to initiate violence against individuals in a certain geographical area.

So no its not just the "U.S. government"
Also i would like to note that government does not equal statism necessarily, as it can be done without a state.

>>39
I was applying your reasoning to a similar situation and statism and religion do share a lot of parallels as well.
Free market advocates tend to go down to theological-like arguments, so that has quite many similar aspects to religion as well. Nearly ever free market advocate/libertarian/anti-statist I've ran into were either soft non-theists, or moderate theists.
You forget that these businesses benefit from having regulations as it puts up barriers to entry for smaller companies.
Society also benefits from regulations. Safety regulations make sure that the ham on your sandwich is safe (though the US could do with tighter regulations on food), and that the Nuclear power plant 5 miles down the road from you isn't going to unexpectedly blow up (again, the US could do with tighter regulations there as well).
Statism is a general idea, it encompasses any political ideology that gives a person(s) the perceived legal right to initiate violence against individuals in a certain geographical area.
It's quite a stretch to suggest that sane regulations that make sure food is safe, and that your immediate surroundings don't become obliterated by a nuclear holocaust equate to "violence".
Also i would like to note that government does not equal statism necessarily, as it can be done without a state.
The only historical example that I can think of immediately might be the Icelandic Commonwealth. Then again, most of the Middle Ages comprised of shitty weak to non-existent governments, or rule by God-thumping mad monarchs. Today, of course, is not the Middles Ages, and both are anachronisms of their times.

What's also interesting is that you keep harping on against the state, when the US government facilitated what later became the Internet we all love and use (DARPA) and the World Wide Web, CERN, which is funded by many European countries as well as the US. Without such, our conversation may never had been possible.