Capitalism isn't something you like it not. It is a force

File: ted kaczynski on leftists.png (152KB, 1200x1620px)

152KB, 1200x1620px

>>136555865

This is literally textbook pure ideology.

>even when the monarch literally granted monopoly charters that created pseudo-sovereign cliques over vast tracts of land and controlled all import and export to maximise profit for the state, that was still capitalism!!!!
>capitalism has always existed!!!!

kek.

Not to mention that capitalism, at least as far as Smith describes it, has utterly failed to deliver on its utopian promises.

File: tank top.jpg (76KB, 736x981px)

76KB, 736x981px

>>136557286
>has utterly failed to deliver on its utopian promises
Well I don't know what utopian promises you're thinking of, but Capitalism has certainly demonstrated staying power. Ever since the end of feudalism there hasn't really been any other system that seriously threatens to replace Capitalism.

>>136558033
>Well I don't know what utopian promises you're thinking of
World peace and no poverty.

No joke. Adam Smith said that free trade would lead to world peace and the eradication of poverty, just like Marx did. Thing is, people tend to excuse Smith his mistakes.

>Ever since the end of feudalism there hasn't really been any other system that seriously threatens to replace Capitalism.
We don't live in Smithian capitalism though, so arguably it's already been replaced or maybe never even existed. We're living in neo-liberal capitalism, as opposed to the Keynesian capitalism of the pre oil-crisis era. Capitalism is in flux and does change as its failings become apparent. To act like there is one monolithic capitalism is dumb, and to pretend that all that capitalism is, is private ownership of capital and free trade, makes discussion impossible because such an expansive definition could even make feudalism capitalism.

>>136558033
Also
>completely ignoring the existence of the USSR
The USSR was not a paper tiger. I understand children who weren't even alive at the time might not "get" this, but there's a reason the Cold War happened - and lasted for decades.

File: blackwater.jpg (24KB, 413x310px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 413x310px

>>136558425
>The USSR was not a paper tiger
No, it wasn't, but it also wasn't exactly a sustainable system either. All nations, with the exception of North Korea (which has black markets), have now adopted some measure of capitalism officially into their economic system, and the general trend is one towards more economic freedom (the nations with less economic freedom tend to be shitholes). Not every nation is going to be some libertarian paradise, but there is a strong global pull towards free market capitalism.

>>136558718
>it also wasn't exactly a sustainable system either
Ehhh. I think it was perfectly sustainable economically, but not politically - by which I mean that the internal politics of the USSR made it untenable, not some gay shit like Western pressure or discontent. North Korea, for example, will last perpetually so long as the leadership can continue to hold it together. The USSR was rather the same.

And if you look at Russia today, you see it has the same problems that the USSR had politically, but worse. It's not a libertarian paradise - it's not even a free market capitalist state. It's a mafia state.

I'd be careful about making declarative statements about the march of history. In the 1600s there was an inevitable march away from the feudal system and towards absolute monarchy, and we know how that ended. You're straying dangerously into Clash of Civilisations territory.

>>136558349
Basically the point here hinges on the fact that any form of capitalism still exists under monarchs or governments but it exists UNDER them because their power is derived from military and law, which decides what "form" of capitalism will be considered acceptable.

But the persons you're replying to could in theory be implying the idea of the black market, the concept of capitalism as a force is seen even in North Korea, everywhere exists black markets. Can someone provide me an example of black market "socialism"?

In a fully communist society there would still always be black markets with a (albeit crude) form of capitalism in them. Is it not worth noting there's no examples of black market "communism" popping up in fully capitalist societies?

If someone can counter this, feel free pls no bully just having a thought

>>136555865
Capitalism is just tiny step to communism. Communism cant be forced till great achievment in AI, but it end game of whole humanity.
And btw there's no true "capitalism" and "free market" - eventually everything falls in oligopoly and monopolistic chimpouts under strong protectorate.

>>136560293
Hoow about nepotism?
Could it be considered "black communism"?

>>136560293
I see the point that's being made, but again I think it only works with a definition of capitalism that is way too expansive. People do trade, and they always will, because trade is mutually beneficial. I give you X, you give me Y, we both benefit, and when the benefits outweigh the costs - even if one of the costs is breaking the law - I should still trade.

But capitalism describes more than just this trade relationship. Capitalism isn't merely trade - it's concerned with capital. Hence the name. I think that capitalism is best defined as a system that allows for the private ownership and control of capital, and allows its employment in a free market for the benefit of the owner/controller.

This distinguishes black markets from capitalism "proper" because you can't own capital in a black market because the capital is illegal. It also distinguishes capitalism from feudalism because even if the East India Company owns the monopoly charter on trade in the East Indies the Crown is the "real" controller because it exerts its influence to safeguard its interests at the expense of the owner on a day-to-day basis, which is distinct from how governments interact with the private sector today.

Basically my litmus test would be "does the lawful business owner have to consider anyone's interests other than their own when making business decisions on a day-to-day basis." If it's a significant yes (can't piss of the party or gulag!) then that's not capitalism. If it's a no, or a soft yes, then it's probably capitalism.

File: 1501866510359.jpg (26KB, 480x360px)

26KB, 480x360px

>>136556817
>moon man on the door

>>136555865
Have some copypasta

Attacking Capitalism in earnest requires defining it, and nobody wants to do that because it requires a real understanding of various economic theories. Then when you define Capitalism you have to realize that the system we see doesn't fit the definition, or the definition is so vague that its ambiguity could fit anything.

Certainly there is no issue with individuals having the capacity to spend and purchase of their own free will. Like wise there is no issue with them owning businesses to generate consumer products and revenue. The concept of currency is greater than any simple economic system because its a precept for an action outside of these ideologies, something Marx wasn't smart enough to fully comprehend. The issue with Capitalism is not spending or purchasing, but financing. Taking on a debt and promising to return yet to be produced wealth allowed civilization to grow at an accelerated rate, but it also created a situation in which money as a whole lost its fundamental value. Banks stopped dealing in coin and became institutions which held domain over the idea of coin. The immaterial has far greater value than the physical material. We artificially control interest rates for a paper backed by nothing.

Destroy the private banks. Return the power of coinage to the people. Each state can have its own bank, and people can freely do business with them across state lines. Each citizen should own shares in the bank of their state. Equity banking is the white man's system of ethical financing. There is no value without surety.

Capitalism one day started happening.

It is not at all natural, instead one must locate the historical conditions and cultural background in which it arises. That is, Florence, Amsterdam, London, New York in that historical sequence.

Capitalism arose in opposition to feudalism, the landed nobility and the rural economy. One day things will reverse once more, and capitalism will be no more. You do not need to be a marxist to understand this btw.