Is capitalism the best system for human nature?

Is capitalism the best system for human nature?

Attached: 00A85C7E-0EE4-4FE6-A036-013185B05570.jpg (1080x1080, 122K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nc51tvRl8zw
mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality_3.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility#The_Marginal_Revolution
youtube.com/watch?v=kHPDh_o9PN4
youtube.com/watch?v=Kf9KhwryQNE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Where?

Not even close

lmao, need to do one with a wojack inside

It distracts us from the real goals in life and traps us into an endless cycle of working so we can buy new things. It is the cause of all suffering in the world.

Wagie wagie get in cagie

Thos

Unironically socialism is the most natural economic system for humans, but only for small tribes of about 50-150 people. It doesn't work for for today's societies.

So gay. Save your money, invest, live life as a CAPITALIST. Whatever gay shit you talked about doing when capitalism was overthrown - now you can do it.

The cage is so the wagie is protected by the flying in-house Amazon drones.

Socialism does not work.

Human nature always wants to improve as species. Natural selection. Socialism does not match with our genes.

Attached: toldyouso.jpg (480x563, 60K)

topkek someone actually made it irl

Attached: 1539749397793.jpg (1278x832, 789K)

THIS PLEASE

>dogmaposting
0/10, apply yourself.

The "true" state of the universe is 'ancap' by virtue of the fact that randomness guarantees "inequality," and organized energy/life always min/maxes survival prospects against randomness according to inborn incentives in response to externally imposed logic systems. any local point of reference that is better described with terms like socialism, tribalism etc a. is still motivated out of the "true" anarchic primordial state b. exists to astute observers only as a brief microcosmic deviation from the "true state" c. is still governed by "true state" dynamics even though myopia convinces most people otherwise.
the nominal state of your economic and legal system is more or less immaterial at any magnification, and framing your thoughts and subsequent actions on the matter in quadrasyllabic buzzwords makes you the sucker in every system.

Capitalism is the very best system, but you have to not get stuck in the trap by being a wageslave. You have to become a capitalist at ALL costs, too many become distracted and accidentally wageslave for 50 years and then retire with a meager fund.

I cannot shed a tear for wageslaves, they're either too dumb or unmotivated to leave the wagecage... they deserve any suffering that comes to them.

Fascism

But most any system would work amongst an all-white, high trust society

Niggers and kikes are literally god’s litter

Attached: C53BB57A-AE00-48E7-A62C-B03B55204D49.jpg (1040x7198, 3.03M)

theres isnt a pure capitalism or pure socialism in this day and age so this this discussion is retarded

capitalism is "I have a fire, you have a deer carcass, I'll share my fire if you share some of the meat of your deer". it's the most human economic system out of any other, we literally evolved with it.

Retard alert

poorfags with inferiority complexes.

>High trust socialism is fantastic, low trust socialism is catastrophic.

what are the chances we see trustless socialism with blockchain/smart contracts?

>Socialism does not work
Socialism is just a variation of capitalism.

>Human nature always wants to improve as species. Natural selection. Socialism does not match with our genes.
t. a guy who haven't read a single book about primitive tribes.

Complete retard. Capitalism was born in the 13th century.
Almost every fucking paper done by prestigious universities finds that primitive trives were sharing and did not use exchange value.

Pretty high. Although i don't like socialsm. Socialism still works on exchange value principles. We should aim to make a society without exchange value and surplus labor.

wow great rebuttal!

>Almost every fucking paper done by prestigious universities finds that primitive trives were sharing and did not use exchange value.

and look where they're now: dead

>surplus labor.
nevermind, you're retarded.

Attached: Screenshot 2019-05-22 at 00.40.18.png (542x757, 438K)

this is my position on this topic:

>mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality_3.pdf

Attached: moop.jpg (640x479, 65K)

You don't choose capitalism. capitalism just *is*. after it had it's run, socialism comes.

one could indeed argue that individuals are bound by the law of randomness or rather the consequences of randomness, but that would discount the growing complexity of human coordination
your argument, I believe, is that in aggregate this randomness creates outcomes that resembles an ancap system
in theory, yes, all it takes is one bad actor to act as catalyst for the collapse of any self-imposed structure and a reversion to the natural equilibrium (ancap), however that clearly isn't the case
now you claim that the nominal state of our system, or rather its classification, is immaterial as we are still motivated by the anarchic drive to survive and reproduce; all other wants and needs are derivatives of these all-important needs, right? Why then do we create systems that go against our nature? Why do these systems not immediately collapse under this primordial pressure and the weight of randomness compounded?
I believe you are indeed the one who is framing your thoughts in quadrasyllabic buzzwords or rather in terms of purely abstract (and quite mechanical) reasoning which has no basis in the reality of the human condition

Love drinking commie tears every single day

Attached: 1555579345896.jpg (500x454, 18K)

Failures in historical communist societies were due external causes, not the system.

Capitalism on the other-hand is literally designed to fail.

Attached: dustbowl_unemployed_men_queued_outside_a_depression_soup_kitchen_1931_-_nara.jpg__2000x1457_q85_crop (2000x1457, 471K)

Trader =/= capitalism. You can have trade within an economic system, without it being capitalist.

If you think otherwise, you haven't done enough research into economic theory.

Some Non-Capitalist Economic Theories you can research...

Mutualism (eg. Kevin Carson)
Left Wing Market Anarchism. (eg. Center For A Stateless Society)
Market Socialism. (Yugoslavia was only one experiment with that Theory. It doesn't defined the theory.)
Sydicalism (Fascist economic theory.)
Corporatism (Fascist economic theory.)

Attached: datass.jpg (1152x2048, 199K)

this pic is actually incredible

>>Almost every fucking paper done by prestigious universities finds that primitive trives were sharing and did not use exchange value.

>and look where they're now: dead
Cows and pigs have big numbers in our current society. They are mass produced and mass slaughtered. Does that mean their live is worth living?The fact that capitalism allowed humans to multiply doesn't mean there isn't an other mode of production not based on the market of workforce.

>>surplus labor.
>nevermind, you're retarded.
Keep wageslaving, bitch.

>gay youtube intro
>overweight onions face
>super mario background
Do these people have any self awareness?

Attached: A5B9CA3F-653B-448C-8DD0-AD6CDD47A5FE.jpg (1024x683, 53K)

> i spent my game playing as proletariat
hahahaha, dude

Yall commies don't even know what capitalism is. What part of it specifically do you hate: freedom of transactions or property rights?

>(((Fascism)))
spotted the cuck

Only low IQ losers and cucks seek authoritarian rule.

The only good take in this thread

What makes you think we live in a capitalist system?

Attached: 1559762252718.jpg (1128x1104, 253K)

I'll comment on this retarded picture.

>establish a new communist utopia, rob and kill successful people
Karl Marx was anti-state. No state, no political violence.

>force the rest to work for free
Marx was critical of surplus labor, whether exploited by an owner of means of production, or prior use of surplus labor like serfs or slaves. So no, there in no forcing other to work for free in Karl Marx's books.

Socialism worked for the Native Americans and caused one of the golden ages in Rome.

are you against free coffee and doughnuts for the proletariat?

>market of workforce.

nice blog. you know you're arguing against a joke? everyone dies faggot. you too, but unlike other people you being dead means less dead weight for the rest of us.

>Keep wageslaving, bitch.

stop hating on the working class. they're honorable people.

>What part of it specifically do you hate: freedom of transactions or property rights?
I don't like transactions, whether made freely, or by Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedung, Pol Pot or Kim jong-un.
>Property right: since when does this shit exist? Oh yeah only 12000 years.

there's no such thing as surpluss labour you moron. lrn2economics or fuck off from Jow Forums

the idea of calling rome at any point socialist is preposterous and the technological level of native americans should be hint for the likes of you at what level of prosperity socialism grants.

Yes there is you cuck. You are just ignorant about it. Everything is exchanged for it's price on the market. However, workforce, which is sold by the workers to the owners of the means of production, is the only value that can creates more value. Your car will never create value. Neither your gold, or your toothbrush. But hire someone, and he can create value for you to put into your pocket.

Attached: labor.jpg (769x591, 86K)

> Oh yeah only 12000 years.
Well, nope.
Back in the day the sovereign was entitled to all your property and even life if he needed that. Only recently there appears an idea that a man can own something that noone should take and if they do, the law protects the original owner.
> I don't like transactions
Enjoy living alone innawoods —the only way to avoid txs

From my experience and research as an economist, a mix of Capitalism and Social policies are the best at maintaining a functional society. ( quick example: If you are dying and there is a drug/service that can help you, it doesn't matter how much money you have you are willing to pay what ever amount to stay alive. Some products or services have inelastic prices that don't react well to changes in supply)
The fundamental problem that economic systems try to solve is how do we best allocate resources for our society ? Do we look at what can give us the best standard of life even if you do immoral things or do we take note and use our judgement and morality to regulate the markets. That is a fundamental question that doesn't have a lot of options. It's clear to me.

Would i like to day dream about a utopia when every thing is fair and everyone has equal opportunity and we make sure the unfortunate members of our society are well cared for and helped, I do! yet I know reality is no fair and It doesn't work like that.

Be awesome to each other !

do you honestly believe you're the first idiot who tries to sell this crap to me? you know this shit has been debunked since the 19th century?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility#The_Marginal_Revolution

>the sovereign
>primitive tribe
I really wonder what kind of eduction did some of you people receive, and what kind of self-education you give to yourself. I guess you are american? Americans have qualities, but they are completely retarded when it comes to history.

> primitive tribe
Kek, noice.
So you do want to leave innawoods with a pack of bros sharing wives n game n sheeit.
Your dream society might work on such a small scale, but no way in can support hundreds of lives, even less so billions.

> But hire someone, and he can create value for you to put into your pocket.
If that person is a source of income, why wouldn't he just be self-employed then?

>I really wonder what kind of eduction did some of you people receive,

it can't be that much worse than yours considering the crap you're posting.

Your marginial utility theory has been made to counter Marxist economy, and is based on the principle that there is and there always was a market. The market only exist since 12000 years. Marginal utility is a theory within an other theory, the exchange value.

"It wasn't muh system!"
>said Lenin, just before being killed by his "allies"
>said Stalin, leading to his own death because socially induced paranoia
>didn't say Malenkov, because no one wanted to listen to him
>instead said Khrushchev, but no body heard his voice, because who knows who a nobody is?
>said Brehznev, but KGB silenced him swiftly
>said Andropov, but who can hear a traitor's voice?
>said Chernenko, alas, KGB listened well to him too
>said Gorbachev, but then Putin stepped in and said
"no, Mr. Chairman, we're "not" a communistic party now, wink wink, eh? Very good!"
you know who also don't say it "wasn't the system"?
lets sing a song
>hundreds of million people murdered in:
>russia, latvia, bosnia, georgia, byelorussia too
>ukraine, azerbaijan and lithuania as well
>armenia, estonia, moldavia, turkmenia had the disease!
>just like tajikistan, uzbekistan, kazakhstan, uzbekistan and kirghizia!
now let's hear from the asian folk!
>so, established by the Stalin - the guy who nicked Hitler
>in china (now people's republic ;) and korea (back then it was just one!)
>he put a guy named Mao - a fucker like no other - to kill his own people
>a red book - so he called - a murderous tool
>one read of simple-minded
>and everyone's on board!
>who gives a fuck, let's murder all! children and what not!
>soooo
>up it went, all the way from yangtze to tarim (big rivers)
>colony of non-reactionists swept with a killing spree
>spared none, parents be or not, red book did not care
>and up in Kremlin, one laughing room with Mao inside
>all smiles corrupt, dehumanized, worse than nazis
>but you might ask, what about korea?
>well, you fucking twat
>you already seem like a fucking moron, not seeing with your own eyes
>so hop on in on a fucking plane and off you go to see your leaders!
>how glorious and magnificent they look, starving their own people.
fucking communists.

Nice rambling retard, boslshevism, maoism, Pol-pot etc... Was state capitalism. It's even mainstream today (wikipedia).

>oooooh, I don't want to listen to your reactionists ideas, I'm too fucking stupid to see how history taught us that communism takes every fiber from humanity and turns it into the most evil thing there is!
no, that was not state capitalism. That's what communism is in a country that stems from communism. If the very roots are corrupt with foul mud the rest of the tree also rots and begets more evil and damnation.
Capitalism has its evil in giving people hard choices that make them the wage slaves. That's the nature's response for "kill or be killed" in the most humanitarian way possible. Add to that democracy, and you're cooking a way for a tree that even if corrupt at the top, can be pruned to a healthy state again.
You cannot cure communistic roots. You just have to cut down the whole tree and salt the ground.

Fear not frens, there is a path you can take that shall free you from the wagecage for good.
youtube.com/watch?v=kHPDh_o9PN4

>Exchange value, a state, a market
>communism

100% sure that you haven't read Marx's last book, Critique of the Gotha program (1875). He was clearly against any state, and again the market and exchange value, which were present in USSR, Mao China, Pol pot etc...
You are under cognitive dissonance, i wrote in ITT that Marx was anti-statist, how can USSR even exist without a state?

>I have read a propaganda book, therefore I am smart
You know, I could also write a book about any new ideology or existing, and there would be some people who would follow a doctrine written in it. It wouldn't make anything in it real unless proven with any coherent, sane and ground arguments.
Marx didn't prove anything but just shown how the change of eras (pre to post industrialism) influenced his work. Its a load of out of date crap that cannot be put together with any of today's standards.
Your cognitive compliance with Marxism only shows your own lack of synaptic connection.

Here's why:

1. There's 7 billion humans on this planet that cannot operate under marxism because
2. everyone is an individual at their core and not a social group because
3. social groups are only made to differentiate a median in a 7-billion human society

You might want to say
"but we all don't live in one country"
and you'd be right.
You might want to say
"I'm too fucking retarded to understand how any of that makes any sense"
and you'd be in your retarded right to say so.

Here's the thing:
If Marxism was the way to go, it would have worked in the last century.
It was the good time to do it.
Capitalism was for it too.
But then it started to murder people, because people are not "social groups" but individuals that make a part of a society.
Some are women
Some are men
Some are children
Some are old
Some are mothers
Some are workers
Some are state workers
Some are intelligent
Some are not
Some are farmers
Some are miners
See when I'm going with this?

In today's society if you'd want to make "social groups" for anything, you'd go insane with paper's work. If you'd want to dissolve social groups, because "reactionsism!" or "unfair!" you'd have to kill more than 3/4th of entire Earth population, because there's a breaking point that you'll reach. Not everyone is a coward who cannot stand for what's right for humanity-and it is not dehumanizing them and putting into statistics.

Yes, because the gratifyingly few alternatives that have ever been proffered are maliciously stupid abstractions postulated by moralizing dunning-kruger brainlets

Attached: ED1C72BC-0DB1-438A-AA50-5F205521D5BA.jpg (1527x654, 215K)

Also, closing, because I'm going to go buy some Marx paintings I saw on sale (irony, I know):
there are certain things you don't have to explain for someone to understand them
Example is: breathing - if you can't do it, you're dead. If you're injured that's fine, but we don't go around explaining to infants how to breathe.
Some things are self-explanatory, like the word self-explanatory.
So, if you cannot understand without an explanation, then with one you won't understand such things. Easy? Should be.

Now, following this line of thought, why on Earth in your mind you'd think (I'd guess) can't the non-marxist people "understand" something so trivial and easy as the society without classes, or a society that doesn't need to struggle?
Well, here's a counter statement to that, because I cannot also understand how in your mind are you going to make a society made out of a large population - because that's what is going on here - listen to your words and conform to them without fighting or killing. Because I worked my back for my stuff. Why am I supposed to give it to some unknowns that are going to walk all over my life without any respect towards me or other people? What will it accomplish for humanity? Will it take us out of this planet and into space era? Or, since everything is equal, there's no struggle, and all that wishy-washy; forever grounded, without purpose, and left in endless poverty, sadness and grotesque.
Also, how are you going to do accomplish something, that Marx couldn't? That not one human since could, and also, not one made sure to not kill anyone along the way?
Because so far it was the stem of marxism that killed the most people, not capitalism.

But, you must know something that we don't, but because its a mystery, you cannot reveal it.
I bet it will come to light when people like Ocasio-Cortez start going around and telling people to kill those that oppose them.
Hence: fuck communism.

"my" marginal utility theory predates "das kapital" you moron.

>just become a capitalist bro
Yep, it's a retard.

Marginal utility was popularized after das kapital. When the capitalist elite sensed that labor theory of value was gaining more and more popularity.

In any case, marginal utility doesn't explain the origin of value. It's a theory that works inside to explain some phenomenon in the market but it doesn't explain the origin, the "source" of value.

dude you just got btfo What would Hobbes say tho?

Only low IQ human trash think communism is the only alternative to the current economic system which has been labeled as "capitalism". Luckily when the current economic order breaks down, they will either die off or go into another form of bondage.

Attached: 1559966198794.jpg (1440x1920, 254K)

Yes. Until we can get a source of infinite energy, but even then there will probably have to be some sort of artificial capitalism in place to keep people from going insane.

literally from the wikipedia article I linked:

>The doctrines of marginalism and the Marginal Revolution are often interpreted as somehow a response to Marxist economics. However the first volume of Das Kapital was not published until July 1867, after the works of Jevons, Menger, and Walras were written or well under way (Walras published Éléments d'économie politique pure in 1874 and Carl Menger published Principles of Economics in 1871); and Marx was still a relatively minor figure when these works were completed. It is unlikely that any of them knew anything of him. (On the other hand, Friedrich Hayek and W. W. Bartley III have suggested that Marx, voraciously reading at the British Museum, may have come across the works of one or more of these figures, and that his inability to formulate a viable critique may account for his failure to complete any further volumes of Kapital before his death

>marginal utility doesn't explain the origin of value.

>utility doesn't explain value.

how do you manage not to forget breathing?

Are telepathic tribal hive-minds the future of humanity?

Attached: 1480418804762.png (2104x1632, 2.63M)

Just as an example take any MMO. If everyone started the game with all the best end game gear and all the mounts, how many people would play it? Basically 0 unless it had some kind of amazing story. You could argue that people are just trained to be this way because they grew up in a capitalist system, but I think it's human nature to want to get things that are hard to attain so that you can show off the fact that you did that.

If there were a utopia scenario where there was infinite food and water, people would just find the next best thing that's exclusive to lord over other people. So naturally that would be land. So in that scenario you would just have an extremely bad overpopulation and real estate problem. And people would still find a way to "be better than" everyone else around them.

By the way the utility theory is again retarded, because it is based on particular retarded examples, like the water and diamand example. Of course if you are dying of thirst, water will have an immense value, but it's generalizing on the basis of one (or particular) cases.

No you fuck, a cloth has value because it is useful, but what constitute the limiting factor of production? Labor. If you can an infinite amount of clothes, it's value will be close to 0. If you can make only 1 cloth, it's value will be phenomenal. But what constitute the limiting factor of how many clothes you can make? Labor. Labor in quantity and in quality. You think yourself smart, because you found some cool theory, but you are not intelligent enough to understand the labor theory of value.

>Karl Marx was anti-state. No state, no political violence.

Attached: marx_terror_quote.jpg (250x332, 26K)

This is what I thought years and years ago. Still think it. It's the only way out of the competitive arena that defines the social landscape we live in. Think about a bunch of bacteria in the ocean that over time formed a symbiosis and eventually all linked together to form a colony which became a multicellular organism.

are you really too stupid to realise that when supply lessens the value it can not be labour that determines value? fucking think for once in your life you useless fuck.

Violence exercised by the proletariat, during a phase which is called dictatorship of the proletariat. To explain, dictatorship done by the workers (wage-slaves in Jow Forums vocabulary), not by an elite. Not by a small fraction of people.

>water and diamand example

here's another one for you: if I pay some dude to dig a whole somewhere in the desert, does the whole automatically have value just because labour was invested in it's production?

*a hole

The same useless example, use by the same stupid fucks again and again. When you work in foxxcon, Chineese factory making smartphone, your work isn't worthless. You have production standards to make sure you are productive, and if you fail to meet them, you are fired. Thus, most work done in modern factories is productive.

What is that coin? no results on google images

The value can have some fluctuations caused by factor external to the labor origin of value, but in GENERAL, in the average case, in the average situation, in the average time, it is labor which is the source of value.

Who the fuck dig a whole in the desert? Mongoloid.

>are you really too stupid to realise that when supply lessens the value it can not be labour that determines value?

Supply of what? Just answer me so i can pin you hard.

youtube.com/watch?v=Kf9KhwryQNE

you're a moron and it is quite obvious that regardless of argument or quality thereof you won't be possibly be swayed. Also you do not understand the labour theory of value yourself.

Attached: Screenshot 2019-06-08 at 23.10.17.png (559x1155, 176K)