What is the end game of liberal capitalism?

>>131165336
Probably Kingdom come.
I.e. the 2nd arrival of the Christ.

>>131165336
not sure desu

I don't think anyone really knows. Commies think it's Communism though, which is wrong unless you think everyone should be dead.

File: 1497576146191.jpg (151KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 768x1024px

>>131165336
Immanentize the eschaton

>>131165403
More like the anti-Christ

>>131165336
Capitalism is cancer
State socialism is cancer

Libertarian socialism seems alright
>inb4 what is that?

The societal equivalent of a fat man having a heart attack.

>the ideology of the cancer cell
And life in general.
>>131165336
>What is the end game of liberal capitalism?
Maintain or improve the status quo for as long as possible, even if extreme measures are required - obviously none of them are working. A poor economy and marxist subversion are working hand-in-hand to doom the capitalist society - the commies are hoping that people will turn desperate enough to seek out a socialist or communist revolution. They're wrong, this has happened before in the 1930s in Germany, and the Communists didn't win.

>>131165336
wtf I hate keynesian economics now

>>131165336

Growth happens due to technology improvement meaning using less input for the same output. Nothing wrong with that. OP is a commie moron

>>131165874
capitalism is chemo, dummy

>>131165874
also lolbertarian socuckism is fucking retarded shit for spineless retards

>>131166369
Good argument I'm ancap now

Good work! Pump up socialism instead.

- Communism has "never been tried"
- 100 million dead by communism not true
- Bad socialism/communism really "state capitalism"

Keep these themes going. Young people are so easy to "educate". Let's get them voting against their own freedom.

File: 3e01ae94c6475e3f39932f35d7d2c489.jpg (822KB, 3271x2370px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 3271x2370px

Universe is empty space
Your argument is invalid.

>>131166739
Universe is cancer to the multiverse

the end goal of (((capitalism))) is globalism

>>131166465
Define "freedom", you fucking piece of shit.
Am I free because I have the choice to work 70 hours a week in (((your))) "startup" and then lose health insurance coverage when (((you))) sell or go out of business? Am I free because I can buy 34 colors of cardboard fucking TV dinner, but I have to commute 3 hours a day?
I think you are mistaking the "colorful product choice" of your capital-military dream for actual freedom.

>>131165336
> "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell"
> Liberals say we need mass immigration so our populations will grow

Moral of the story: Liberal ideology is identical to cancer

>>131166465
>I'm a cocksucking retard
What is third position?

>>131166989
Freedom means you have the choice to sort yourself out and leave your shitty job for a better market. This includes just packing up and leaving for somewhere better.

File: Liberals & Communism.png (489KB, 1360x980px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 1360x980px

>>131166465

>>131167171
>Freedom means you have the choice to sort yourself out and leave your shitty job for a better market.
Yeah, all the people in the US living in working poverty WANT to be there.

>>131167187
Ironic that you post this on a board of LARPing Nazi holocaust deniers and fat Americans who think that their impending civil war will be a good guys vs bad guys Star Wars rerun.

This board is full of deluded ideologues and tankies are hardly the worst of them.

>>131167618
Of course they don't, but they're either too inept, blind, or w/e to find a solution to their circumstances. Blaming the "system" and screaming "oppression" is what a nigger, or child does.

If you're not capable of succeeding, through wit, skill, luck, or whatever, then too bad. That's just the way it is. The only wrong thing with Capitalism in this instance is that you're still allowed to propagate your flawed genes.

>>131167618
Actually yes they do. They rather stay lazy or fall for get rich quickly scams rather than gradually improve through hard work

>>131167618
>Yeah, all the people in the US living in working poverty WANT to be there.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of lazy people in America.

>>131167787
>>131167804
>>131167794
>they're either too inept, blind, or w/e to find a solution to their circumstances
kek.

Yeah, the US managed to have a healthy middle class only a few decades ago but in just thirty years the moral fibre of the nation totally collapsed. THAT is the explanation, not an economy that's jewing you ignorant fucks.

File: Cultural Marxism 101.png (310KB, 1356x1380px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1356x1380px

>>131167773

It really is sad how out of touch with reality you Commies tend to be. It's ok though, you'll realize it soon enough when the majority of America turns on you fucking liberals and your retarded ideology.

>>131167787
So what do you do when those people are starving and resort to violence? You're going to want to live in that country

>>131167929
>It really is sad how out of touch with reality you Commies tend to be.
Again, it's funny that you can say things like this and not see how they equally apply to every ideology on this board.

>>131165336

Matrix

Death and despair for everyone, money sucked up for the (((central bankers)))

File: ret.gif (371KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 500x280px

>>131165336
what is the end game of muslim polygamy?

>>131168067

I will be the first to admit that every ideology has its flaws, but to insinuate that Communism isn't a complete failure is utterly ridiculous. Capitalism & Socialism both have their flaws too, but are MILES ahead of Communism when it comes to practicality.

>>131168067
America is becoming less liberal everyday. Non white demographics are stagnate,crime is rising,and white liberal is synonyms with numerical,social,and political decline

>>131167171
>leave your shitty job for a better market. This includes just packing up and leaving for somewhere better.

Yeah, you know this isn't feasible, right? To get somewhere else I need money, to get money I need a job where I can live and save money, to get that job I need to get somewhere else.

You can't just pack up and go.

More capitalism will only lead to (((corporations))) becoming more and more powerful until (((they))) essentially run everything through their puppet government they control behind the scenes, what you end up with is basically a world where all you can do is consume, you can't say anything you want because freedom of speech is gone, and you are a slave to your employer and the banks.

While on the other side communism just gives power straight to them to control you, leading straight to an orwellian landscape. (So probably would "facism", you would just end up like North Korea)

Pretty much no matter what we are fucked in the end. There is no political solution. Right is fucked, left is fucked. Everyone is fucked.

>>131167912
Yes, the fundamentals of what makes Capitalism great have been dislodged and betrayed by Big Government. Corporate Welfare, a disgusting term in it's own right, and other "regulations" designed to protect and prop up monopolies goes against everything the Free Market is supposed to be. Never mind the incredible impact of social/cultural changes that have had severe economic impacts, such as forcing women into the workforce.

If you paid attention, you'd notice that the "collapse" or degradation of the economy has been going hand-in-hand with the expansion of government and increase of socialist attitudes/policies. Marxists have been subverting the nation since the 60's, and it's getting worse.

>>131168022
Obviously you try to make sure society doesn't degrade to that point, this is why band-aid measures like the welfare system and w/e have been appearing rapidly. However, we're starting to slip past the event horizon in this respect, and we're seeing the street battles between extremist factions are already beginning. Nazis/Fascists oppose Socialists/Communists, and one faction will reign supreme in the end. Considering America's history, this is probably going to be the Nazis.

>>131168410
Actually Washington D.C is the only place where white liberals seem to have kids and do anything, but they're literally displacing blacks at a pretty high rate. It's blinding hypocriscy

>>131168287
The problem with your post is that you're not critiquing communism - you're critiquing its adherents. And those critiques equally apply to the adherents of other ideologies - like the Nazis that you can literally show pictures of concentration camps and watch them deny it just like in the screencap you described, or the capitalists that you can show the factories in South America that were locked up by the owners and then taken over by worker co-ops - by force - and managed better.

Commies are no worse than anyone else because they, like you, are human. Their flaws are YOUR flaws.

>no but i'm an intelligent elite superman
Are you so arrogant to believe you're the only one? There is someone just as intelligent as you who is a communist. There are people MORE intelligent than you who are communists. Just like there are intelligent people who disagree with me too. And you might be one of them - or you might not be. My assessment of that depends on how you conduct yourself.

And if you are intelligent you will sooner or later come to realise that it's not left vs right, of communism vs capitalism. It is, and always has been, smart vs dumb. I'd rather a smart person I disagree with than a dumb person I agree with every day of the week.

>>131168567
>Yes, the fundamentals of what makes Capitalism great have been dislodged and betrayed by Big Government. Corporate Welfare
So you admit this post was wrong: >>131167787. That the moral fibre of American hasn't changed and it's just that your system has failed them?

>but Corporate Welfare isn't my system
And Stalinism isn't communism but one leads to the other.

>>131167171
(same fagot here) you stupid piece of miopic refuse. So you pat me on my back, and confort me: "no, anon, you see, under capitalism, you are free to dedicate your life to profit, which usually means being a parasite to the earth. If you rape her cleverly enough, and when you are old and tired, you might even have enough dollars to stop worrying about how to pay for a loved ones insulin ". You fucking piece of shit. Your smug sheltered American little smile is the only thing that makes me feel better about a possible climate or nuclear apocalypse.

>>131165874
Libertarian socialism is a contradiction of terms.

>>131167187
What the fuck is your argument? This doesn't disprove that true communism has been tried in the Soviet Union. Atleast you could attempt to make a point that whenever communism is tried as a system it will always turn into a corrupted mess because of man's inherent nature to abuse power. Your dumb infographs and badly constructed arguments are fucking terrible.

>>131167773
>impending civil war will be a good guys vs bad guys Star Wars rerun.
Yeah the problem is how deluded right wingers are. They stockpile guns and think they will win the civil war cause "liberal panzies can't shoot". The right wing really needs to get organized and realize the capability of the enemy.

>>131168748
The "system has failed" because a foreign "system" is imposing itself on our society. "Capitalism" has been allowed to become a "system" rather than a decentralized market like it is supposed to be. The term "Capitalism" itself was invented by fucking Marx.
>>131168848
>under capitalism, you are free to dedicate your life to profit, which usually means being a parasite to the earth
Yes.
>If you rape her cleverly enough, and when you are old and tired, you might even have enough dollars to stop worrying about how to pay for a loved ones insulin
Yes.

You should try reading Machiavelli. Resentfulness doesn't really get you anywhere, but in the end you'll either chin up and work yourself out or surrender to despair and kill yourself. I encourage the latter.

We need fascism to crush these communist kikes back into the cess pool they originated from.

>>131169385
>The "system has failed" because a foreign "system" is imposing itself on our society.
Putting "system has failed" in quotation marks doesn't make it less true.

>COMMUNISM FAILS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR HUMAN NATURE HAHAHA FUCKING COMMIES
>MY SYSTEM ONLY "FAILED" BECAUSE OF HUMAN NATURE, DOESN'T COUNT LOL

>>131169385

>"Capitalism" has been allowed to become a "system" rather than a decentralized market like it is supposed to be.

I hope nobody takes this person seriously.

>>131169602
>human nature
I never mentioned human nature. Again, a foreign system is being imposed on our previously successful society. Our failure to resist it has resulted in a net loss for the West.
>>131169654
No intelligent person takes you communists seriously, I could care less for your opinion.

>>131168888
No actually it isn't. The americanized term of libertarianism that has been co-opted sure, not actual libertarianism. Read bookchin or chomsky

>>131169787
>Our failure to resist it
Your system's failure to resist it.

>>131167794
The subject of the post, banker, is what the endgame is. And your glib imbecillic post brings us back to the subject.
You seem to have an uncanny ability to understand the tendencies of billions of humans. Can you tell me "hard work" towards what? What is the project here?

>>131168888

No it isn't. Socialism isn't a unitary term and there are a lot of school's of thought within socialist ideology. Libertarian socialism is distinguished by criticizing hierarchy and authority imposed by corporate power and state power in equal measure, i.e. being two sides of the same illegitimate coin which both serve to perpetuate an inevitable oligarchic system where these two powers merge to consolidate their tyranny over citizens.

>>131169924
What is happening to us has happened to the Romans and many other great societies that became incredibly successful and powerful, and then, becoming tolerant, and more critically apathetic, have allowed their enemies to pull the rug out from under them, so to speak, and collapsed. This is not a consequence of the system fundamentally, it's a consequence of it's extended success. So, yes, the society is going to fall into a civil war. Again, the Nazis will face off against the Commies, and the Nazis are probably going to win. Is this a good thing? Obviously not, but I'd personally take the Nazis over the Communists any day, given their respective histories.

>>131169970

Mindless work culture fulfilling hedonistic human desires, creating more desires, fueling itself endlessly.

The liberal capitalist project can be summed up by the fact nearly anytime politicians have to talk about what they're going to do for people, they talk about how they're going to grow the economy, make some economic metrics increase, make sure more people can participate in the economy.

Sure, we are all still living as human beings and the politicians will also talk about stopping terrorism, they'll talk about practical things like access to basic services like health care. But overwhelmingly they care about abstractions, big numbers that need to continue going up, and it is assumed that the more they go up, the happier people will be.

>>131169787

Did I say I was a communist? You're just a retard because you claim capitalism isn't a "system". It has to be a special fact of nature that you can't even call a system or else your fragile, religious faith in it might be hurt.

>>131170478
>You're just a retard because you claim capitalism isn't a "system"
It literally isn't, and it wasn't until the 1900's that introduced the Federal Reserve under Wilson and large scale expansion of Government under FDR.

Growth for the sake of growth is how we get the refugee crisis.

>>131169921
What is changed in american libertarianism?

>>131170065
Why can't socialists agree on a definition of the word socialism? It does not really seem have real meaning. It is hopeless to read the wiki page on libertarian socialism since there are millions of different socialisms.

>>131166989
so what, you would prefer having commissars sending you to jail for showing up to work late, having to stand in line to get your rations of stale bread, have free "healthcare" where standards are 50 years behind the actually-free world?

>>131170473
The romans lasted a lot longer than you cunts. Don't try and claim their glory for your shithole and enjoy your civil war.

>>131168848
>"reading machiavelli"
His "prince" pamphlet is a cute but frankly written sloppy blowjob to his employer. Maybe it didn't sound as edgy back then.
>encourages being a parasite
> is edgy
>encourages accepting a life of fear and servitude
>glorifies growth because can't imagine an alternative
The American education is complete.
That's why I quit your country.

>>131170807
>i didn't fail at becoming successful, you see i actually quit!

>>131169385
>"reading machiavelli"
His "prince" pamphlet is a cute but frankly written sloppy blowjob to his employer. Maybe it didn't sound as edgy back then.
>encourages being a parasite
> is edgy
>encourages accepting a life of fear and servitude
>glorifies growth because can't imagine an alternative
The American education is complete.
That's why I quit your country.

>>131165336
Growth = Progress

We defeated hunger
We defeated poverty for the masses (first world)
Wealth is better distributed than ever before in the history of mankind
People have a reasonably good chance of social mobility

Prove me wrong

>>131170805
>The romans lasted a lot longer than you cunts
And only dominated the Mediterranean, whereas we effectively control the entire planet. But good job missing the point.

>>131170807
The Prince is a book on how to succeed in life that has been followed by many such successful people, including prominent leftist leaders like Stalin. Summarizing it as a "sloppy blowjob" is little more than evidence of your infantile thought process.

>encourages being a parasite
The existence of Winners always necessitates the existence of Losers as well. Seems you're in the latter bracket. The word "Parasite" in your sentence shows nothing but bitter remorse and resentment.
> is edgy
Seeing the world for what it is is "edgy", now? What doesn't constitute "edgy" then? I suppose, believing we can deliver a sunshine-and-rainbows utopia for everyone? You're being deluded.
>encourages accepting a life of fear and servitude
Life is suffering. You either accept it and work with it, or shun it and fail spectacularly.
>glorifies growth because can't imagine an alternative
What other alternative is there? This rock, like everyone alive today will be dead and gone some day, and science tells us that the Universe itself will sputter out and die too. You can't remain stagnant forever. Growth of technology (Which necessitates the growth of other sectors, including general prosperity) is the number one priority as through it may be, in the very-very distant future, the only-but-still-highly-unlikely solution to entropy, and no society has done far more for technological growth than Capitalist societies have.

>>131171528

>confusing consumerism with material progress

We also have hungry kids in this country while you can buy 37 types of cereal and a new iPhone every year.

When automations replace almost all human work, neo-feudalism will be the norm

>>131171947
>"we effectively control the entire planet"
>can't even control Iraq
>can't make NATO pay denbts
>can't keep UK in EU
>can't keep Russia out of Ukraine
>can't beat ISIS
>can't topple Assad
>can't achieve any of your strategic aims at all
Name a single geopolitical objective that the US has achieved without caveats in the last 20 years.

Maaaaybe Kosovo.

>>131165336
Capitalism has no inherent end game. It's a force of nature. Self preservation & greed taking its natural course.

The goal of liberal capitalism is to try and direct that force into something useful. Nudging the pursuit of selfish interests to line up as close as possible to the maximizing the overall well being of society. Only involving the government to restrict practices that harm society (it doesn't have to make it impossible, it just needs to not be the path of least resistance).

The thing about capitalism is that it's a factor in society whether you want it or not. You can either make it work for you, or you can try to fight it. The latter case is why radical socialism starts collapsing the moment people start to lose faith in the state. Why would I keep towing the line when my family is better off if I just provide for them directly? No matter how glorious your utopian dream world, people are going to ask themselves that question every day.

>>131165336

They are all psychopaths. They literally can't stop, because pathological and insane. Just one big circle jerk of greed.

Growth for the sake of money on the other hand makes perfectly good sense.

>>131172030
>20% of the world population can afford a reasonably good lifestyle
>At the beginning of the XX century it was only 2%

More production gave us the possibility of focusing on more important issues instead of worrying about the everyday strive to survive.
We should question the use of this “extra time”.

>>131172337

>The latter case is why radical socialism starts collapsing the moment people start to lose faith in the state. Why would I keep towing the line when my family is better off if I just provide for them directly?

What does that mean? Nobody provide for their family directly. We are all dependent on the global, industrial machine. The state props up capitalism just as much as it props up socialism. You're forced to work in this unless you want to be on the streets. If you walk away you won't have access to anything except what you can steal, forage or have given to you. And even then, these options are very limited and controlled by the state and social norms.

>>131165336
Your image makes a ridiculous and meaningless argument. This is the kind of thing that retards "thumbs up" on facebook.

1) Cancer cells have nothing to do with ideologies.
2) Capitalism has nothing to do with "growth for the sake of growth."

But if you want to make idiotic and spurious category-mistakes, "growth for the sake of growth" is the fundamental priclnciple of all biological life. It's literally the motive force of all organic exustence.

It's an impressive accomplishment to pack so many false premises and shit conclusions into so few words.

>>131172139
We're already seeing it, with the precariat. The fact that machines do all the work, doesn't mean that humans have time to better themselves. It means humans are worth less and less, but without the education or incentives to curb their reproduction.

>>131165336
>muh economic crisis
>muh consumer nation
>my culture
to nigger everything up destroy langauge

>>131172142
>Name a single geopolitical objective the empire has achieved in it's decline phase

File: 1463604233894.jpg (41KB, 680x793px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 680x793px

>this is a board dedicated to political discussion
>people genuinely think the Soviet bloc nations were examples of Communism in action
>Communism is a political system that has no state government or social classes
>Soviet Union ruled by an extremely powerful and corrupt central government

Why is it like this?

Its growth for the benefit of humanity. I understand you are against that.

>>131173453
>"we effectively control the entire planet"
>"we are in decline and don't effectively control the entire planet"
You didn't even "used" to effectively control the entire planet, faggot. Cold War ring a bell. Vietnam ring a bell? Cuba ring a bell?

>muh USSR was a paper tiger
Post Cold War myth.

>>131172912
>You're forced to work!
How is this a problem? It's been this way for fucking millennia. The 'recent' introduction of the welfare state, lottery, and other such programs are what enabled the fucking NEET lifestyle in the first place. Do you think you were created to lounge around all day without a care in the world? That's not realistic.

>>131173612
Might as well call it communism for convenience because real communism won't ever exist anyways

File: 1485024381876.png (582KB, 753x899px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 753x899px

>>131173612
>Not real communism argument on /pol/

>>131173725
It doesnt benefit humanity, it just makes the eventual population crash worse.

>>131173995
>might as well do things wrong because it's easier

>>131174104
Well-argued! Definite food for thought, the human race is lucky to have a heavy thinker like you on board.

You confused growth for progress.

This is not what we want:
one rock for cooking food -> two rocks for cooking food -> three rocks for cooking food ->etc.

This is the goal:
rock for cooking food -> bronze pan -> cast iron pan -> non stick pan -> robotic chef -> ???

>>131173612
>unironically posting "not real communism"

even if you are a leftist, if you stay true to marx you can't just be an idealistic and ignore the real world, that was the whole point of marx

>>131170726
They can't agree because socialism is a Talmudic doctrine. It has no underlying truth, just ever-changing arguments to get you what you want.

>>131165336
>cancer
>ideology

>>131173612
>the Soviet bloc nations were examples of Communism in action
Yes.
>political system that has no state government or social classes
>Somehow you can maintain a political system without a government or ruling class inevitably springing up

>>131173857
We isolated the USSR into a bubble where it couldn't expand through conventional means. The threat of mutual annihilation effectively gave us control over them, and collapsed under the stagnation.
>Vietnam
Ah yes, the country we militarily defeated and then decided to ignore, who broke their end of the peace agreement and fell into famine and economic collapse shortly after.
And yet today, they've effectively fallen to Capitalism and prefer us to the Chinese, who could not impose their will on them.
>Cuba
Cuba is laughably destitute and isolated. Unless you're referring to the Bay of Pigs, itself a half-measure.

>>131174187
The point is that any attempt at "true communism" inevitably results in a totalitarian society, thus there's little point in distinguishing the two terms.

>>131174466
>???
quantum edible self assembly

>>131165336

tfw pol tells you, your penis is canger . :C ....

>>131174650
>all these caveats
You couldn't even come close to controlling the USSR, who were still in Afghanistan in 1989, and even today Russia is in Ukraine. You lost in Vietnam (keep denying it fuccboi) and Cuba continues to exist, which is all any state can hope for.

Face it: your "empire" is a joke, not a third Rome.

You cannot point to a single unqualified American victory in all of your history. Except maybe the Civil War :).

>>131174650
You don't think a system can run without a separate "government" entity to manage it? You're going to tell that to every anarchist, communist, and ancap on the board?

What roles in society would need the existence of a government not directly controlled by the people?

Scientists, military leaders, factory management - none of these require special distinctions separate from any other job.

>>131174924
You act as if Rome itself did not have enemies which it could not completely subjugate, even at the height of their power. But given how many wrong things there are in your post, including your increased use of inflammatory language, I can see at this point that you've resorted to baiting. Maybe you think I'm getting angry? It's at least good to see that you've lost the argument. Hopefully you'll reflect on it later and change your thinking. Ciao.

>>131166369
>>131167794
>>131168287
>>131169787
>>131170473
>>131170780
>>131170914
>>131171528
>>131172337
>>131172692
>>131174585
Your capitalist ideology has been allowed to grow for two centuries. We now have a planet overflowing with grabby Africans and their diseases, both mental and viral. A planet where scientists have to entertain the children of local politicians to get their work funded. A planet where art is worthy only if it amuses the consumer. A planet where irreversible poisoning a river gets you a 6 week fine. rYou define success by your illusion of your ability to distance yourself from the results of your exercise. Fuck you. We'll all pay the toll of your stupidity.

>>131167773

>who think that their impending civil war will be a good guys vs bad guys Star Wars rerun.

'I know you are but what am I' from the same people who celebrated the redesign of Star Wars, ultimately a children's film series, to make it a propaganda show about their ideology triumphing over what they present ours to be.
You're just infants with no internal consistency, bleating 'snarky' replies like a sixteen year old to anything we present you with, because your sense of party feeling is so exaggerated you can't let 'the baddies' 'win', regardless of how petty it is.
I doubt you're even that articulate a Marxist, either.

>>131175427
>You act as if Rome itself did not have enemies which it could not completely subjugate
You act as if the US only has a few, instead of a history comprised of failure for the entire period you claim as a golden age.

The US is not worthy of the glory of Rome.

>>131165336
Everyone will own a Walmart and shop in Walmart....become Walmart

>>131175524
>I doubt you're even that articulate a Marxist, either.
Probably the only thing you'll get right today. I've only read one of his writings, and it was his Communist Manifesto pamphlet.

I'm not saying "I know you are but what am I."

I'm saying "Yes I am, and so are you."

>>131175401
>You don't think a system can run without a separate "government" entity to manage it? You're going to tell that to every anarchist, communist, and ancap on the board?
First off, the "government" entity is never truly separate, neither is it avoidable. A form of governance will always arise, whether it's men in suits or the thug with the biggest stick.
Yes I am, because they are all in fact deluded ideologues without a sense of reality. Are you actually going to argue in favor of a historical impossibility?
>What roles in society would need the existence of a government not directly controlled by the people?
Ideologues love to say "the people" without knowing what it means. It almost always means a form of government. Even if an anarchist society somehow gets together and agrees on things, then they have, perhaps without realizing it, have created a form of governance. You cannot avoid social hierarchies.
>leaders; management
Forms of governance.

>>131165336

>liberal capitalism

You meant crony capitalism.

>>131175509
'Capitalism' doesn't even really exist, it's just the other side of the Kosher sandwich we all live in. Both Capitalism and Socialism are framing devices used to make people think they have to choose between allowing Jewish exploitation, parasitism, and degeneracy in the name of free markets or giving Jews direct control over the levers of power in the name of equality. This is why all modern politics serve Jewish interests, they control the frame we operate in. The frame must be destroyed, modernity must be destroyed. We must choose the self-interest of our own people, and whatever serves that interest, as our only political ideology. The good of our ethnicity, our nation, our race, must be our only economic system.

>>131175758

>Probably the only thing you'll get right today.

Again, you snark when you know I'm right.

>"Yes I am, and so are you."

And if I'm not?
This is a pretty shoddy axiom to just set down as fact.
There are qualitative differences between the left wing and the right wing, especially in America. In the US, there are numerous veteran militias, and believe it or not, stockpiling arms does matter. I don't know why you treat it so flippantly - same goes for the basic fact that a militant left winger will seldom join the armed forces or police, where they will receive formal firearms training.
Expecting mass desertions is presumptuous - the US isn't Syria.

In Europe, a 'civil war' would be the government going house to house finding anyone with slightly national-racial opinions and then executing them, with the assistance - sorry, 'critical support' - of the socialists and communists through their 'antifa' sock puppets, which are already ridden with (by?) police spies.

>>131176035
I should expand on what I'm defining "a government", as an organization external to the people, to be.

Think of how little you can impact directly the management of where you live - if the police chief is corrupt, can you vote him out? No. The best you can do is complain and protest and hope that 1) the corrupt chief doesn't charge you with a crime and use his cronies in the legal system to sentence you, and 2) that the politicians who actually have power will recognize your complaints and remove him. The officials ARE NOT ANSWERABLE to you, and are thus ABOVE you.

In any of the anarchism-based systems, the police chief could be withdrawn by a vote of no confidence. As could ANY OTHER OFFICE HOLDER. That is a fundamental difference, they are not equivalent, regardless of the superifical similarity of them both managing something in the society.

I am saying that it is not necessary to give up citizens' control over their own governance, whereas you claim it is an "impossibility".

>>131175509
>Your capitalist ideology has been allowed to grow for two centuries.
Rather, it has dominated all of it's opponents. What, you think there's some Communist God out there who just happened to let his most hated enemies succeed?
>We now have a planet overflowing with grabby Africans and their diseases, both mental and viral
>Overflowing
Ah, the overpopulation meme again.
Their conditions are rapidly improving if you look at the facts and statistics. Nigeria for example is doing quite well against it's peers, and is on track to become one of the more powerful nations later into the 21st and 22nd centuries.
>A planet where scientists have to entertain the children of local politicians to get their work funded.
Hey, it works. And it has worked spectacularly considering the progress we've made.
>A planet where art is worthy only if it amuses the consumer.
Yes, and?
> A planet where irreversible poisoning a river gets you a 6 week fine.
Yes, problems like these however are being addressed, and certainly will by the coming generation that is even more concerned over them than we are.
>You define success by your illusion of your ability to distance yourself from the results of your exercise.
I define success by what we have accomplished. The results of our "exercise" have been significantly increased living standards, technology, knowledge, virtually all positive trends since 1776 and before. There are flaws in Capitalism as all ideologies, but the reward in Capitalism is far, far greater than the risk, a quality unmatched by any other.
>Fuck you. We'll all pay the toll of your stupidity.
>Thank you, even now you're enjoying the benefits of our progress.

>>131165336
>growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell
Wow, thats some deep shit

>>131176356
>And if I'm not?
I'll believe it when I see it.

>There are qualitative differences between the left wing and the right wing, especially in America
There were qualitative differences between the marksmanship skills of a British infantryman and a German infantryman in 1914, but a few months of war ground that out of them.

You are naive.

You think that a man and his rifle can win a war. It's utterly ridiculous. I don't know how I can hammer it home more clearly. You also seem to think that the left wing and the right wing are different species. Equally ridiculous. Everything you are capable of - so are they. It's simple biology.

I'd quote a passage on "Why Arabs Lose Wars" about the foibles of those who use culture to estimate fighting prowess but I can't be fucked. It's 2:30AM and I'm going to bed.

I hope your country fucking burns. It has before.

File: american-eagle-flag-3x5-17[1].jpg (151KB, 600x360px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 600x360px

>>131175619
Because the US HAS only have had a few. You'll notice that the Vietnam War is literally the -only- fucking war that it has ever really "lost" The fact that you have to actually cherry-pick examples is proof of this. In two centuries a British colony successfully revolted, expanded, dominated it's continent, then it's hemisphere, and then imposed it's will on the rest of the fucking planet, INCLUDING the very empire-and-now-irrelevant-island it gained it's freedom from. We are the World Police. We are the Big Stick. When a nation in the world faces a dilemma, they turn to us first for help. We planted our flag on the motherfucking Moon. Our culture - the globalist culture, came from us.
Yeah, we're not comparable to Rome, because we've far exceeded it. To believe anything else is complete ignorance.

>>131176745
Dominated its opponents? There was only one major non-capitalist power, the USSR, and it didn't even exist for 100 years.

Overpopulation IS a major concern. There are many resources it takes to sustain our current population, and future expansion relies on making technological improvements that are not guaranteed. There's no guarantee that we'll be able to vastly improve food productivity, as a simple example.

Re: scientific progress: again, there was no significant non-capitalist power to be competing with your scientific model. It was going to work because how could it not?

Pollution problems are "being addressed"? Pollution was a concern at the dawn of the industrial revolution, hundreds of years ago. How long are you going to address it for?

You are quite blind. You are imagining capitalism beset by rivals and surpassing them all, but this is not the case. There is effectively only capitalism.

>>131170726

Because there is no way to synthesize the stark ontological differences and prescriptive conclusions which thinkers who utilize socialist thought and ideas end up espousing. These are sometimes entirely in contradiction with each other. If you have to generalize one way, then you might look at various polarizations from an Authoritarian/Libertarian scale. Social-democracy/democratic socialism for instance, broke with Bolshevism very early on. So did Marx when he critiqued the Gotha-programme which founded modern social democracy. Socialism then also precedes Marx by about 250 years, so there isn't even any legitimacy in tying it to him. Today most socialism is a form of revisionist socialism. It remains materialistic in its epistemological foundations, but isn't more than a umbrella term for a disparate amount of ideas and ends.

File: its all so tiresome.jpg (48KB, 492x449px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 492x449px

>>131177292
>all this rhetoric
>can't even control Iraq
>can't make NATO pay denbts
>can't keep UK in EU
>can't keep Russia out of Ukraine
>can't beat ISIS
>can't topple Assad
>can't achieve any of your strategic aims at all
and add
>can't win in Vietnam
>can't beat Cuba
>can't keep USSR out of Afghanistan
>can't keep China down
>can't defeat North Korea
>can't keep South America in check and commie free
>can't make France decolonise Africa
>can't keep France in NATO
>can't fix the middle east
>can't even get New Zealand to host your submarines
>can't keep the UN in check
>can't convince anyone of the legitimacy of your world police actions
>can't even provide healthcare to your citizens
>can't solve Cuban missile crisis without humiliating backdown in Turkey
>can't even keep Philippines in the fold
>can't stop Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
>can't retain Australia as an ally
>M1 abrams was worse than T-80
>flag on the moon has literally already faded to white and you don't have the money to go back and replace it
>won't exist as a world power in fifty years

>>131176745
you are scared to be racist because you think it is about hatred

>>131174924
>couldn't control USSR
Collapsed their entire economy splintering their "empire" and freeing millions.
>lost vietnam
Our military hasn't been allowed to truly 'win' wars since WW2. It's merely profit motives and money making schemes to extend conflicts as long as possible. If we unleashed the military the way you're supposed to conquer nations then we'd have vast open swaths of land available.
>cuba
Has been allowed to exist even more so since the fall of the USSR. They don't stir up any trouble so we left them alone.
>empire is a joke
You mean gaining territory through conquest and ruling over it's inhabitants? The thing which eventually brings down every empire? We can project force across the globe in minutes something no other country had been able to accomplish throughout history. If you think other countries don't bow to American interests in deals or backroom negotiations especially when we're not being subverted from within you're either woefully uninformed, in denial, or simply retarded.
>b-but you guys only won the civil war
Yeah sure if you ignore all the other wars we won or should I say the allies would have lost if we didn't prop up the allies with supplies, money and manpower
>inb4 Russia beat le Nazis
They would've been steamrolled even easier without us holding them up. They threw bodies at the machine but without the west Russia would be speaking German today.

>>131176636
And what if that police chief decides not to obey the vote? Unless his underlings are all deeply committed to the system, which you'd need a state-level "education" to do, then he can easily promise whatever he wants to them and keep or increase his power. Corruption always finds a way.

>I am saying that it is not necessary to give up citizens' control over their own governance, whereas you claim it is an "impossibility".
No, it's not necessary, but the point is that you're arguing over what's necessary for the system and not how the system is going to stop itself from imploding or corrupting into another form of society, or how it's going to prevent itself from being conquered by a neighboring state entity. Corruption/greed/etc. are forces of nature in social hierarchies, and without the necessary checks and balances (which typically require governments to implement) will get their way and usurp the system.

>>131165336
mongrelizing all ethnic groups and turning us into jewish slaves of course.

>>131177746
A lot of these "points" fall into the categories of "we easily can but choose not to". or "Literally no point in doing". You're scraping the dirt for minor examples, including those as tiny and insignificant as the USSR having a slightly better (and it wasn't by a long shot) MBT while ignoring the big picture.

Yes, it is tiresome, I'm becoming tired of your lack of a solid argument.

>>131177911
Where the hell do you get that from?

File: never ever.gif (564KB, 800x430px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 800x430px

>>131178467
>"we easily can but choose not to"
I'm going to bed.

Enjoy the world that you easily could have ruled but chose not to.

>>131178235
You think people support honesty and a way of life at a basic level only when they are brainwashed to do so by a state? I know your own personal brainwashing holds a lot of sentimental value to you, but honestly.

The system stops itself by not giving the corrupt a beachhead to start their parasitism. Offices are not interconnected or mutually dependent for further holding of their office. Having socialist control over goods in the society would mean that there is less incentive to be greedy, since you can get most creature comforts readily without risk of being excluded from the society, rather than needing to line your pockets however you can.

You are correct in pointing out that corruption and greed are inherent to hierarchies - which is why I am talking about removing the hierarchy.

>>131178467
>>131178051
The Aussie is right on almost all of those points. I can't believe your level of ignorance.

Societies dont have end games, when societies end usually a lotta people die

>>131178594
>Enjoy the world that you easily could have ruled but chose not to.
Well, we do rule it, but there are other ways to rule than having your flag plastered all over a foreign territory with your armies marching through it. You should learn what subtlety is.

Good night, maybe you'll wake up smarter.

>>131165336
We can use this argument against fuckers who think population growth is impulsory.

>>131177262

Its very childish to do this 'I'm going to bed, so you can't reply to me,' thing. Just stay up another ten minutes to end the conversation you willingly started.

>There were qualitative differences between the marksmanship skills of a British infantryman and a German infantryman in 1914, but a few months of war ground that out of them.

For concrete material reasons, which you can learn about if you choose to study the BEF. Which you won't, you'll simply draw a silly little maxim from an event you know the bare minimum about and then treat it as truth. Marx hated people like you.

>You are naive

The way you've formatted this statement is embarrassing, its a bit 'nothing personnel... kid'.

>a man and his rifle and win a war

Where did I say this? I'm simply telling you that plenty of rightist groups are already organised. Civil wars tend to be of a different character to 'regular' wars. The US army would itself, in this situation, be a sort of battlefield, they aren't machines, you know.
Besides that, you seem to have no notion of how irregular or paramilitary formations can transform over time into regular armies - look at how the PLA developed over time, under near-constant attack.

>Everything you are capable of...

Again, we are not talking about abstract people in an abstract world. Look at the two 'sides', perceive their level of training and organisation. I'm certainly sure that there are left wingers in America who can fire a gun competently, but their friends? And their friends? Where do these people live? What kind of associations are they part of? Are there in-group divisions which must be taken into consideration?

I'm not thinking about culture, I'm thinking of organisation, geography, etc. A civil war in America wouldn't be 'a walk in the park' for either side, but it would eventually be won by the 'rightists', if the country didn't collapse into smaller political units, that is.

>I hope

Hopes don't really matter.

>>131178051
>>131178467
To expand:

- The US did not collapse the USSR economy, they mismanaged it themselves.
- We lost Vietnam because the military wasn't "allowed" to? If we had just burned the country to the ground and killed all the Vietnamese we would have won? Sure, but that would have been a much greater political loss than a military victory.
- Cuba was not "left alone". We have been trying to remove Castro from power his entire career, and were not able to do that. He's only a few miles away from the US! Cubans had to live under a very strong embargo by the US, and they didn't overthrow him!

He's also right on: not managing Ukraine or Iraq, didn't topple Assad, and we are losing ground against China.

>>131178688
Explain WW1 then. Explain why USSR isn't around. Refute my point after WW2 our wars are merely money making schemes and not meant to truly be won but extended indefinitely. We only 'won' the civil war? What is revolutionary war, war of 1812, Mexican American war, conquered the native tribes, again back to WW1 and WW2. Even up to the present day, you can argue we didn't 'win' yet Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all toppled. You think this shit just happened by accident, it's going according to (((their))) plan. They want chaos and a destabilized middle east.
>yet I'm the ignorant one, Jesus Christ kid wake the fuck up

>>131178688
>You think people support honesty and a way of life at a basic level only when they are brainwashed to do so by a state?
Being totally committed to a system to the point where they ignore their own selfish desires typically does.
>The system stops itself by not giving the corrupt a beachhead to start their parasitism.
Good luck.
>Offices are not interconnected or mutually dependent for further holding of their office.
Not in the open, no, but secretive pacts (done intelligently) are easy to create and maintain, and can easily assert further control.
>Having socialist control over goods in the society would mean that there is less incentive to be greedy, since you can get most creature comforts readily
History has shown that this never happens.
>which is why I am talking about removing the hierarchy.
Which is not possible. You are talking about "police chiefs" never mind the various other "offices", implying organizations, implying hierarchies. These aren't going to stay flat and unmoving. They're going to expand if they see the opportunity to do so and they absolutely will find a way. The moment you have any kind of hierarchy, no matter how small, it's going to grow. Hierarchies form because individuals, while needing others to survive, are also not equal. The mere fact that non-human hierarchies have been forming for millennia before us and now is proof of this. You can't just "remove" the hierarchy, because ultimately you'd also need one to "remove" it in the first place, and if there's a Stalin somewhere in your utopian government that is supposed to dissolve, well, then, things really aren't going to work out for you.

I'm going to go take a shit.

>>131165336
Growth for prosperity and civilization. Growth for strength, growth for joy. Leftists btfoed in perpetuity.

>>131169921
>The americanized term of libertarianism that has been co-opted sure,
Only because the term "liberal" has been coopted by marxists.

>>131173612
because how to achieve the end goal is a part of the ideology, and for very well understood reasons it will never ever work.

>>131165336
I think to just have all people who disagree with them totally drowned out, and to have everyone agree one way on everything, via exploiting media to display one side of news.

>>131179554
I didn't refer to most of those specific arguments, I only started following your back and forth with his last two or so posts. So, not sure what "explain WW1" is about, but it's such a vague demand I won't waste time looking back.

I already gave my perspective on the USSR collapse, and after WW2 many wars were NOT money making schemes. Those in the Middle East? Sure. But Korea? Vietnam? Not a chance.

Yeah, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya all had governments collapse, but did that really do anything for us? We fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, supposedly, to defend ourselves from terrorists that weren't from there. The terror situation is MUCH WORSE than it was before. Painting irises on your eyelids doesn't make you "woke".

>>131179650
If the system helps your family and friends more than being selfish, and they view helping their family, friends and community as making themselves more happy than not... then yeah. Quite obviously.
Secretive pacts work best when they have meaningful impact over each other's office. This is much less so the case in an anarchist system. Impossible? No, but much less likely.
History has shown that it hasn't happened YET. control over the socialist economy has always been managed by tyrants, not the people, who would obviously be more concerned in getting goods to themselves.
Referencing animals to justify a political philosophy is pointless. Lots of things eat their own offspring regularly, should we?
Of course there will be hierarchies of organization, but not of POWER. A manager might need to make a case to the public to disband an employee he dislikes, rather than holding this power himself.

>>131165336
prosperity for all.

>>131165499
I'd say corporate republic which is what happens when corporations take over a weak goverment.>>131165710

>>131165336

growth for the sake of growth actually (in growth theory) translates to higher living standards for everyone

maybe we need a new model that prioritizes societal stability though (sustainability applied to more than natural resources)

File: brasil.jpg (38KB, 640x431px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x431px

>>131181729
uma delisia

>>131176745
I'm so happy Trump carried the majority of your voices. I sincerely hope he makes good on his promise to hand healthcare to the corporations.
I hope people you love need healthcare soon.

>>131179144
> The US did not collapse the USSR economy, they mismanaged it themselves.
I highly doubt the USSR would have collapsed without the foreign pressure that forced it into maintaining a massive military, or embarking on disasters like the Afghanistan adventure, or, well, embracing Capitalism itself under Gorbachev.
>We lost Vietnam because the military wasn't "allowed" to?
The military had already won Vietnam. North Vietnam literally surrendered, and then only reneged on their peace agreement once we left. Our error in Vietnam was failing to properly equip the South Vietnamese to resist any further attacks by the North.
And yes, we could have completely crushed Vietnam militarily, but the threat of global thermonuclear war put that off - the USSR had to be neutered first, and when that did happen in 1991, a lot of formerly communist nations went under and into Capitalism. The "Communist" Vietnamese went to us when it became clear that China wouldn't fuck off.
>Cuba was not "left alone". We have been trying to remove Castro from power his entire career
Again, the threat of WW3 kept them safe. Our leaders figured that it was more cost effective to slap an embargo on Cuba and hope it imploded rather than waste men and other resources conquering the island, given that they didn't really have significant resources like oil for us.

>>131178780
You say 'we' but I doubt you have anything to do with US's expansionalist affairs and your contribution to financial machine is probably nonexistent as well.

>>131165336
Theres no end game to capitalism, is just about voluntary exchange, people doing bussines it has no ideology whatsoever (it obvious can only prosper on more freer societies).

>>131180588
>If the system helps your family and friends more than being selfish, and they view helping their family, friends and community as making themselves more happy than not... then yeah. Quite obviously.
This implies that everyone would be equally happy, in equal circumstances, and have equal mindsets. None of those are true.
>Secretive pacts work best when they have meaningful impact over each other's office. This is much less so the case in an anarchist system. Impossible? No, but much less likely.
And how would it be "less so"?
>History has shown that it hasn't happened YET
That's a quite a lot of history for it to eventually "Happen".
>control over the socialist economy has always been managed by tyrants, not the people, who would obviously be more concerned in getting goods to themselves.
Yet the "people" often need organization and thus leaders to challenge the previous order, at least in the case of a violent revolution. This is one of the inherent problems with pursuing a utopia: Even if you're some paragon of wisdom, etc., there's still (multiple) Stalin down there who has a way with words, knows how to game the system, and will almost certainly stab you in the back and use you as a stepping stone in his quest for power.
>Referencing animals to justify a political philosophy is pointless
It's not about justifying a philosophy. We're talking about one of the basic fundamentals of social animals (humans included), and that includes the social hierarchy, which has been around long, long before the concept of philosophy or ideology.
>Of course there will be hierarchies of organization, but not of POWER.
Hierarchies ARE power. Having someone, anyone call the shots explicitly implies that they have power over their underlings. And who's going to force the manager to make the case? It's doubtful everyone will get angry at once and force him to keep said employee or worse, especially if they're apathetic to a relatively minor circumstance.

>>131182184
They do right now, actually, but since we're not financially retarded, we have the means to pay for it without state intervention. I'd expand on healthcare, but I'm lazy right now.

>>131168848
Freedom is about choice to do as you please as long it dosent infrige with the freedom or private rules of the others, property is about managing the resources in a more clever way (scarcity is a real thing, you cant have everything to everyone at all times as socialism promotes) it defines whats my whats yours so can come later capitalism so we can do a voluntary exchange with our propertys, a good or a service.

>>131182452
A lot of what led the USSR's collapse was its tyrannical government. Social cooperation fell apart because so many different ethnic groups and regions were being held under a heavy thumb, and were starting to rebel all over. Nobody wants to be kept alive as a human shield / satellite nation. Foreign pressure played a role, to be sure, but even economics is only one side of this story.
If they surrendered and then re-invaded the south... then they were still in power, weren't they? We defeated many military units of North Vietnam, but never did they surrender! Only a cease-fire treaty was signed. We pulled out of the South, and they were overrun. We abandoned them and retreated. That is a loss.
We wasted PLENTY of resources on Cuba. We didn't come back to it, even after the USSR collapsed. His point was that the US tried to overthrow the Cuban government, and never succeeded. He didn't say that we spent 100% of our national resources on accomplishing that goal, only that the goal was not accomplished. This is true.

>>131183450
>everyone equal mindsets, etc
Where does the system imply that?
>why less so
Because everything is public facing? Because Joe Boss doesn't control the employment of all 200 people underneath him?
>lots of history
Modern socialism has existed for... what, a hundred years or so? Wow!
>leaders for violent revolution
I don't support a violent overthrow to establish something like this.
>social hierarchy
And before hierarchies, there were no hierarchies. They are efficient for certain things, but are not a necessity.
>power
Force the manager to make the case? If he wants to get rid of the employee... he has to. That's the way employees are removed in that system.