Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Age old Capitalism vs. Socialism

Reply
- Sun, 07 Mar 2021 17:44:06 EST D7oNUOvN No.210385
File: 1615157046904.jpg -(92000B / 89.84KB, 699x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Age old Capitalism vs. Socialism
Why is this debate so undervalued and overlook? I personally think this discourse is the foundation for human development in the future. Let me feed on your thoughts.
>>
Phineas Tootbanks - Sun, 07 Mar 2021 18:22:02 EST fGHDtkRk No.210386 Reply
1615159322553.jpg -(29279B / 28.59KB, 236x381) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
We don't live in a democracy in the US obviously, or really anywhere, and yet the overwhelming majority of people would say they believe in democracy when it comes to the government, but why does that not extend to the workplace for most people? Why is it just accepted that most of us are in situations where a single unelected person or small group of people are basically God to us? What could someone possibly do to "deserve" that much power over other people? It's laughable to suggest that the hiring for positions of power with-in a firm has almost anything to do with actual merit rather than clout and luck. So someone lies, cheats, smooth-talks, bribes, or sleeps their way up the ladder, or happened to know or come out of someone who's already at the top, and we give them the power to control what we do and when we do it, they control whether or not we get healthcare, whether or not we can pay our rent, and whether or not we starve to death. Americans have been fed a lie that we're freely acting and this system is fair because you can "just get another job" or "just move" or "just go to college" when the reality is most workers can't just do this, and insofar as they can they're limited to their choice of master not free to be their own masters.

People are hypnotized by capitalist realism, completely incapable of imagining any other system and they put up with so much because they don't think there's any other way. They actively fight against their own best interests because in the back of their minds they're thinking one day they're going to be at the top and then they'll be the one in charge, but for 99.9% of us that day never comes, and we die poor and alone. Even in our work we're alone, in these hyper-specialized and atomized positions doing the same task over and over again, standing in the same exact place, at the same exact time, seeing the same exact production line, but we don't ever see a finished result, we're exhausted from overworking ourselves and yet we feel as though we've done absolutely nothing of consequence, we can't see what difference our lives make on the world.

Socialism is simply democracy in the workplace. It's a system in which every worker has a say. Obviously there are still positions of leadership and hierarchies, to some extent that's unavoidable, but people in these positions would offer guidance rather than rule with an iron fist. It's a system in which the needs of every person are not commodities but rights, and people are truly free to pursue their passions in life, to create, to do the things that make us humans, not struggle for survival like animals.

With the technology and resources at our disposal now, such a system is easily attainable in principle, and I can see no reason not to fight for it.
>>
Coochie Monster - Mon, 08 Mar 2021 02:30:24 EST D7oNUOvN No.210387 Reply
>>210386
Thank you!

I personally believe that the red scare, and the institutions within capitalism that propagate its mainline thought (privately owned media monoliths, as an example), are the most successful tools of propaganda for disinformation in human history. I have never read Manufacturing Consent, and you don't need to, in order to understand the widespread misunderstanding of capitalism. I mean, people still define capitalism as solely a free market or a system of currency based trade - and socialism as a connotation to stalinism. It's absolutely incredible to me, that information that is so widely available and free on the internet is so violently repressed and disregarded.
Saw an American on instagram saying "It think the minimum wage should be raised a little bit, not too much. But I don't know what that would do to the economy, so I really don't know" and he works for fucking Subway. The whole point of people acting and thinking against their self-interest is the biggest obstacle.
>>
Sidney Soddleson - Sun, 14 Mar 2021 04:21:37 EST ynoLJbSI No.210393 Reply
1615710097685.jpg -(96349B / 94.09KB, 1024x792) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Yeah, a big part is disinfo and shitty definitions of terms. The janitor at my work watches Fox News along with the engineers. It makes sense some of the middle class align with capitalism because their material interests are met and then some, but for the low wage earner, why do they identify with and see the capitalist system as a positive system to support and to oppose people who oppose it?

Go figure faith in a system of disasters.

A part that may play in the teeter-totter is social programs since the New Deal and beyond (but what about outside of US context?), suppression of dissent, and the authoritarian communists post-WW1.

For example the federal food aid program was really expanded in response to the Black Panthers free breakfast program to undercut their influence coupled with targeted arrests and assassinations of BP leadership. The government undoubtedly has greater resources to draw upon. The New Deal and work program undercut mutual aid networks that sprung up in response to the great depression since the work programs paid wages while the mutual aid networks involved trade of goods and labor.

After the assassination of that one president in the early 1900s the US forcefully deported people with anarchist beliefs. There were alot of exiles from other European nations too fleeing repressive government policies. Back then the disparity of wealth and domination of the majority of the population was more clear cut and dry. Perhaps that is why the movement for liberation was of a grander scale? Tons of dissidents were arrested and many died on prison islands.

The Bolsheviks exiled, killed, and imprisoned people who opposed them, including anarchists, revolutionary communists, and other leftists, the slaughter of the Kronstadt sailors being the most well known action. They dismantled and coopted the power of the worker soviets. They betrayed the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War. The authoritarian communists carried out terror pograms all over, killing, exiling, and imprisoning tons of people for dissent, causing weariness and disdain towards communists to this day.

Still the constant disasters of capitalism should be highlighted and liberatory possibility advocated and practiced for.
>>
Simon Saddlehudge - Sat, 20 Mar 2021 23:16:37 EST 3AYRSUK/ No.210398 Reply
>>210385
>Why is this debate so undervalued and overlook?

Because the people with the power to change things won't and they've trained billions to not only accept it, but to be hostile towards even the thought change.
>>
Archie Ponkinpere - Thu, 22 Apr 2021 00:43:56 EST 3TX4SyS2 No.210412 Reply
>>210385
Capitalism and friendly competition - very good.
Thoughtful and strict regulations that protect the worker and consumer - also very good.

Combine the two and you have a market economy that works for the people
>>
Nigel Brookfield - Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:08:36 EST fGHDtkRk No.210413 Reply
>>210412
Combine the two and you still have a system centered around the profit motive and infinite growth which is cruel and impossible respectively.
>>
Doris Socklelat - Fri, 28 May 2021 16:50:16 EST WTsEH3UJ No.210448 Reply
Poor people should just eat the rich
>>
Hugh Bissleshit - Tue, 01 Jun 2021 11:19:59 EST z/W8wWpr No.210456 Reply
1622560799556.jpg -(83817B / 81.85KB, 800x533) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>210448

I'm going to repurpose rich-person into candles to use to heat the pans of food for my socialism buffet.
>>
Edward Crungerkere - Thu, 03 Jun 2021 19:16:43 EST uZDG3i/e No.210459 Reply
>>210385
I don't know how many OAS franks are requisite there across, but at my school, we had Pizza Hut pizza and sandwiches submarine on every day, in side cafeteria. Why it's inhibited to spread as quality in a world of dripping result, I question to any.
>>
Phineas Claywater - Wed, 16 Jun 2021 20:05:42 EST ScClk48A No.210469 Reply
Personally I never really seen a reason why either couldn't work, I mean, for example in a capitalist system you could have a privately owned business that shared it's profits with all involved, whilst still leaving an amount agreed upon by all for the business itself to grow/maintain, it's just that (for whatever reason) in the eyes of our current economy to be a "good capitalist" you need to maintain a balance of maximum profit, efficiency & growth. You don't make money by giving it away, it's just "good business".
With regards to socialism, can everything really be owned by everyone? I mean isn't it technically just the same thing under a different label, like there will still be systems and hierarchies based on knowledge, experience, age, really all the "demographics".. We are after all each individual entities that exist within the whole, so is it not true that everything we do is privatized by our individuality but then also shared through the social lives that we are living, we are inherit ally social creatures after all.

Maybe I'm being too philosophical about it, but I don't think picking a side is a solution, especially when neither system has been proven to work (as far as I've researched..)

I don't so much focus should be put into picking either or in such grandiose situations such as these, we need a more easily maluable system that is able to be restructed as nesesary, confinding ourselves to one system seems like a sure fire way to end up in a totalitarian dicatatorship or something along those lines.

Currently the privatization of the banks, media, military, schools (basically everything that shouldn't be privatized..) is quite literally (in my opinion) dictating the current flow of society, which should be left up to society.. (seems pretty obvious, yet I've met my fair share of people willing to fight against that ideology, not even people in positions to benefit from said privatizations, in fact they're usually "victims of oppressions" from the disparity and inequality that inevitably results from these systems..)

Don't even get me started on the absurdities that lie within the powers of politicians and governmental bodies, ones that regulate their own work load & income (maybe let everyone have a say?) & I guess that underlines my point, In every system there will be corruption, bugs in the system, this doesn't mean the system is flawed & needs to be thrown out.. Why not take the good from both sides?

Anywho I digress...

long story short, f privatization but also respect others rights (as another individual entity on this planet) to what to live privately ...unless that person is raping the planet & vacuuming the economy into their greedy pockets..

Peace
>>
Simon Pittbury - Sat, 26 Jun 2021 23:49:40 EST Isur3uFs No.210472 Reply
>>210469

The essence of capitalism is that the economy is largely, if not almost entirely, manipulated on the whims of private citizens and their wishes. It's much more free, but also more volatile. It is possible for a communist state to be democratic, right? The leaders would be those chosen by the majority, but still might maintain an authoritarian stance with lower degree of freedoms.

I honestly don't know much about communism, but I don't think there's a huge share of ownership. I believe there's still a bit of personal responsibility in people's actions regarding income/job. I might be completely wrong, so ignore me on that anyways. I would really like to know more from somebody who has experienced it first hand and can tell about it from a personal viewpoint.

I think the best form would actually be a mixture of the two, but there's really no reason why we shouldn't eventually advance to a civilization that is largely without any observable form of currency. All suffering, want and poverty would be eliminated, as our technology would allow us to provide meaningfully for every person, everywhere. That's the ideal future, and hopefully soon.

We also need to rethink the way we build cities. A lot of things regarding infrastructure and urban spread will have to be replaced with what we need to advance and survive, but construction won't be done in profit based endeavors. The tendency in richer countries is that the average number of children declines based on how well the average citizen is provided for. That means the overall population will plateau, or lower, when the vast majority of couples are having 1-2 children, meaning less people to provide for.

I don't know. Humanity is fucked up because the positions of wealth and power are naturally sought most by egomaniacs and sociopaths. That's the tendency, or so I've heard. https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/?sh=1a33cdd54104

That means that over the history of man's evolution we've generally been influenced most by people with psychopathic traits, which means greed is good, essentially. Eliminating what we would ordinarily understand as currency would possibly remove this issue, although such people would still be seeking powerful positions, which might end up with very similar effects anyways.
>>
Jenny Gunnerman - Tue, 24 Aug 2021 13:28:02 EST q0IVpCmH No.210480 Reply
>>210385
I think it's a boring conversation. Because really it's people arguing for things they don't really want.

Because what are the reason people like capitalism? Competition bringing quality goods to the people, Democracy by the market being seen as a giant voting mechanism and also the ability to start your own business and be what most call self made.

Why do people like socialism? Because running the world on profit is outright stupid and tyrannical for anything besides consumers, because it erodes culture, it's fine with making people work in shit conditions so long they are cheap to hire and it leads to massive inequality.

The issue lies that in allowing the modern market to run the economy, you by definition kill nearly everything a pro capitalist would enjoy. Since companies can be traded and by definition the one that can buy the most is the most successful, so it only leads to successful companies becoming more successful since they eat up other companies, which kills competition. Which in turn kills the ability to be self made for majority, with few outliers here and there. And it eats democracy too, since it established a role of the few powerful at top because they can then hire people to change public opinion or bribe politicians.

The issue with allowing a planned economy is that it leads to few at the top planning the economy and giving them immense power, which leads to them slowly developing their own despotic rule. It erodes culture since it no longer is organic but is what the state decides and it leads to economic inefficiency that leads people to work harder but not smarter.

What you can do instead is realize that since we both can't have the things we want by these two systems, we can follow by logic what we can have from this that can lead to a better world. Which in my view would be a market run economy that instead of solely relying on profit, also takes other things into consideration which in modern day would be very easily to implement since calculations are done by computers and if the information is public, would have much harder to be falsified than in the past. And let's make certain industries like healthcare, which no sane person I think would like to depend whenever it's profitable or not, just be run on something completely different than profit.
>>
Jack Menkinwill - Sun, 29 Aug 2021 13:55:39 EST 08BkxddT No.210482 Reply
Capitalism is just feudalism where the people are complicit because of the shit products that get mass-produced thanks to technological innovation and are sold into the idea of class mobility, which is basically an illusion when the real innovators just get bought out by monopolies and innovation that isn't profitable gets squashed.

Take away the labels, think of it in direct terms of cause and effect.
>>
Eliza Gubberhall - Wed, 15 Sep 2021 21:43:06 EST Scq/uEny No.210508 Reply
>>210412
This naive progressive ideas are inherently unstable because they don't factor in the powerful agency those capitalists you seek to regulate have. They will subvert, corrupt and undo those regulations by any means necessary simply because there is money to be made in doing so.

  • bankers and investors will directly hire their own regulators
  • employers will retaliate against whistleblowers
  • mega corporations will leverage regulation to prevent competition
  • tech startups use gig workers to circumvent labor law
  • and all of them will collectively donate and promote any politician who will make the law work for business.
>>
Nell Crallertedge - Sat, 19 Feb 2022 09:08:26 EST Wa/2PG1L No.210686 Reply
>>210385
Even the simplest animals comprehend property rights, even if they don't respect them.

We are in competition. Socialism is stalemate, an ideology sacred to those who lack the initiative, or even the intention to cultivate their person.

The gang bang of all gang bangs.

Vag up front vitiligo porn.
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Nell Crallertedge - Sat, 19 Feb 2022 09:11:07 EST Wa/2PG1L No.210687 Reply
>>210686
I was born a racist and i'll die a racist

God gave me a lot to be proud of
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Charles Sanningkere - Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:03:01 EST DtTugHZR No.210695 Reply
>>210508
The biggest way they subvert you is by convincing you government as a concept is useless/hopeless, spreading mystical utopian dreams of some kind of anarchy that lacks all the negative symptoms of anarchy(which are just as irrational as thinking the government solves everything) which makes their job of enslaving us 10000x easier.

You've bought it hook line and sinker my friend.

Now I'm not saying we can solve all problems this way, or that corruption never reaches a point where corrupt groups manage to gain ultimate control(ironically this is accelerated by people calling it futile way too early).

You have created super powered enemies and now you are in a cage of your own fear.
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Charles Sanningkere - Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:07:51 EST DtTugHZR No.210696 Reply
>>210695
To add to this. Honestly it just takes a small stroke of genius or being in the right place at the right time.

Do you think the banking cartels really wanted trump to get elected?

Crazy shit can easily happen at the flip of a dime. This is the knowledge they are terrified of.
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Charles Sanningkere - Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:10:32 EST DtTugHZR No.210697 Reply
>>210696
And what are politicians without their supporters? What are politicians if they cannot get you to think what they want you to think?

What is supporting corruption is that we as a people have become too lazy to try and change what our government and politicians are doing.

The entire house of cards crumbles without our support. It doesn't matter how corrupt you think they are.
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Charles Sanningkere - Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:22:38 EST DtTugHZR No.210698 Reply
>>210697
And what do all politicians like? To be elected. To have supporters. And to make money.

The goal is to make C require A and B.

It is our complacency which is silently supporting them. When more people start to get involved in changing the government, eventually politicians will be forced to follow, as populists. It requires a certain threshold to be crossed. That's it.

The entire thing is an illusion.
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Reuben Mittingledge - Sun, 19 Jun 2022 14:49:22 EST SgXUzB4U No.210772 Reply
>>210698
>eventually politicians will be forced to follow, as populists
populism is how trump got elected, the current demographics and prevailing culture of america, namely "white america" prevent a populist movement in the US from being anything but right wing, especially at the federal level. the only time all of america is okay with left wing populism is during a crisis, which is why even trump ended up handing out trillions of federal aid dollars during the pandemic. just that quickly, though, here we are back at the primary issue of national ethos: repression of race and sex education, repression of bodily rights, possibly even reversal of freedom of contract, an impressively atavistic burst of conservatism emblazoned by trump SC nominees and made possible by right wing populism

demographically speaking though, this position is untenable for more than a few decades unless extremely repressive "reforms" are made to prop up white nationalism, and this might even be antithetical to the interests of corporations by such a point in time

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.