Capitalism is slavery

>>37301788
>authoritarian figure comandeers property
>working class forced to live in poverty

Sounds more like socialism, my dude.

>>37301788
>its not communism
>therefore its capitalism
You're a fucking idiot. What you described IS NOT capitalism, that is, true capitalism (i.e. free market). Fuck off

Wow Op you really opened my eyes.

I want a society where everyone has no choice but to do a specific job for bare minimum rations and no sense of achievement! Communism sounds great!

Protip: not a single economic system works because all human leaders are absolute shit

Until humans are led by non-humans, no system will work. Everything is ruined because humans that become leaders of a big anything instantly become the shittiest humans alive. The only leadership humans are able to pull off is tribal leadership. Anything above that and everything gets fucked

>>37301788
So the Chinese abuse their citizens and somehow capitalism is to blame? We don't have great American people working for a dollar a day on sweatshops, where the emoyees have to be stopped from killing themselves. That is the life of a communist citizen really.

File: auiSR.jpg (140KB, 960x600px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 960x600px

>>37301788
>the people who believe this anecdote advocate for a (((temporary))) authoritarian state to control the property in a fair way
some animals are more equal than others

>>37302275
>true capitalism

as much of a unicorn as functional anarchy

>>37302324
No economic system will truly be good until we have reached post-scarcity at which point it fails to matter.

File: 4L_NTMsGu60.jpg (89KB, 720x697px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 720x697px

Cant we all agree that shit is fucked now and will be until more wealth trickles down like it should in theory to average people? Memes aside wealth/power shouldnt be hoarded to a small list of people in any type of society capitalist, communist, or what ever the fuck

>>37302409
We will never reach post-scarcity with human leaders

We could have reached post-scarcity a long time ago. Global post-scarcity.

File: 1494528423034.gif (617KB, 498x498px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 498x498px

>>37302433
>scarcity implies a limited amount of anything
>we could have reached post-scarcity
really activates my almonds

>>37302334
>and somehow capitalism is to blame?

who are they building those iphones for? isn't it the proudly capitalist citizens of the united states, using chinese labor for pretty obvious free-market related reason of getting the most work done for the least amount they can pay?

and really, what's actually communist about modern china? i'm not being facetious here; is it a place where private property doesn't exist and everything is shared or not? from what i've heard those chinese laborers are paid wages, even if they're shitty, so that seems to suggest it isn't a communist place.

>>37302479
What I mean is that we could already have a world where every single man has all their needs taken care of

But you already knew that, you're just memeing

>>37302430

Sure. I mean, the reality of money and how it needs to move is pretty straightforward.

Money didn't always exist, it was invented and developed by humans because it serves a purpose; facilitating the exchange of goods and services between individuals in a civilization with distributed labor. Which is much preferable to barter. But this means we can say, broadly, that money which is getting spent is serving its purpose, and money that is locked away in a bank account is not. Money is a medium for facilitating human productivity, not an end in itself.

But an end in itself is exactly what it has become for the 1%. The rich people who scheme and lobby for ever lower tax rates will only ever spend 10-15% of what they earn in a year, because it's just hard to spend that much money as one person. So why are they still working so hard when they could coast on what they have? Competition. They're never rich enough; humans will hoard to defend against personal insecurity, and rich humans are no different.

The problem is that this kind of hoarding harms the system. The billions sitting in overseas bank accounts are billions not being spent, and not being taxed to help make sure the population can get basic needs, spend money to create jobs and get the education necessary to perform new jobs. Money is an economy's blood, and when too little blood gets to parts of a body, the body as a whole starts to die. That's what oligarchy and plutocracy will mean for us. It will also mean stupid leadership and bad priorities, because again these are just humans with lots of money, not gods.

>>37302565

The issue in America is that we treat money like a moral issue when it's not. The proud libertarian cry on this is "taxation is theft!" We think we're a meritocracy even when there's no evidence to support that claim and plenty against, and so we have a tendency to look at taxation as taking from people who "earned" their money and deserve it, to people who don't deserve it because they didn't earn it. This sort of thinking is appealing in its childish simplicity but has to be rejected just as thoroughly as any other childish assessment of the world.

We cannot afford to look at the spread of wealth as a personal morality tale, we have to see it as the broad, cold systemic issue that it is. Systems with massive inequality are unstable and cruel places where progress stagnates, places where peons live short lives and Kim Jong Uns spend all day jerking off. If strong progressive taxes are what's needed to make sure that money flows around and that people from every walk of life have a chance to climb to the top and participate meaningfully in public life at every level, that is what we must do. If redistribution is what makes sure that no particular group's myopic view of reality becomes the only view that matters, so be it. We cannot kid ourselves that the world's rich all got there via sheer personal merit, because they didn't, and we can't pretend that even if they did that it would mean they should be allowed to calcify their wealth permanently and ensure no descendant ever has to really compete, while wielding undue influence over the political systems that govern everyone, not just them.

The free market is what existed in the past, and as civilization has progressed, that free market has always become less free. It is only the idealistic libertarian who looks at this trend, and at the results, and thinks to himself that a freer market could be a better market.

>>37301788
>all you've done is just move it overseas

Thank goodness, it sounds inconvenient.

>>37301788
>Then a man forcefully took the land that Oliver enjoyed using

If Oliver can't defend his property he has no right to it.

>>37302593
Sounds like capitalism to me, might makes right