Was capitalism a mistake?

This is beyond stupid

We do have capitalism, just like the USSR had communism. Just because this shitty (((system))) doesn't work it doesn't mean it's because we don't have free trade or capitalism

see:

no, this is capitalism's end game.

capitalism was always "centrally planned". its literally the collusion of state and corporation, happening since the 1600s

T. Brain dead commie

no, this is central banking's endgame

You ancaps are in the closet commies. beta faggots

banking was always a part of capitalism

triple checked and factspilled
imagine long ago pushing for capitalism and seeing that it's gaining traction and not securing the fucking bag for lineage and for your frens until the end of time. it's an insider's game every time.

this shit makes my blood boil. people are so fucking stupid. star wars is fucking stupid. disney world is fucking stupid. fuck this planet i hope it gets destroyed by the sun exploding soon

I said central banking you retard

Capitalism was designed by people much smarter than you, to keep you from killing yourselves, and still give you as much freedom as possible. You should be thankful.

bank of england was established 1694

Never said England was capitalist.

calling something stupid doesn't make it wrong

we never had absolute capitalism; though we had something remarkably close by historical standards about 150-200 years ago in certain countries. the USSR never had communism; they had a large spearheading force which attempted to instate it [and failed] - they nonetheless created (for a time) a society closer to communism than any other comparably advanced and populated nation.

politics and economics are nuanced fields and cannot be properly analysed by sorting certain national areas into absolute temporally fixed labels

>not real capitalism

>it's capitalism because I claim it is and my jewish professor agrees

>it's capitalism because I claim it is and not if my jewish professor agrees

that stupid. socio political systems are analysed as they functioned historically. if youre not going to reference what actually happened as a result of x cultural phenomenon, just stfu

either way, you're wrong

no u faget

>no u faget

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

>socio political systems are analysed as they functioned historically

not only is that not universally true, but what you're claiming is actually more in line with my methodology than your own.

your methodology refers to historical events and then sorts them very neatly into undifferentiated categories of 'capitalism', 'communism', so on and so forth

all social systems, insofar as they can be said to have a real-world existence, are nothing but manifestations of certain value judgments in the behaviour of individuals.

communism isn't a failure because the USSR succeeded in establishing it and then it failed [using this as your chosen route of communist critique actually makes their position much stronger, as these things are so easy to perform gymnastics around (because the world is absolutely nothing like a laboratory in which all but x can be held constant)], it's a failure because it cannot be established

We don't have capitalism. The most important price discovery of all is the price of money, and that is determined by the fed, who wont allow honest interest rates because muh recessions. Fucking boomers should have got wiped off the face of the planet in '08 and millennials should have had a buying opportunity. Instead we are expected to buy their bags at ridiculous valuations propped up by free money from the fed. And then boomers complain about millennials... fucking bullshit

Attached: 1546039263871.jpg (241x209, 6K)

Still coping that your fucktard ideology has killed an order of magnitude more people than fascists?

when historical communism is referred to, it absolutely involves the communistic policies of the soviet union and its effects, among other things.
it isnt a "neat category", it it simply the best way of describing the historical events as they were

this guy gets it

but you need to keep in mind that in a certain sense it's not 'real [pure] communism' otherwise you're not talking along the same lines as those who claim it to be as such and aren't actually addressing their claims

according to people who make such claims, the 'wreckers' in the USSR were proof that there was internal subversion and therefore the USSR was not a complete communist state

if you say 'i'm going to call it communism anyway', you're more than half-right but also doing absolutely nothing to show the other person in the discussion that he is wrong

[your notion of] history is literally worse than useless against communists, especially the more consistent ones who believe in dialectical materialism as the only valid theory of history
the only way to actually convince them of anything (if this is possible) is through proving their deductions to be contrary to logic

it's really just jewish satanism practiced to hide feudalism

there's no pure anything, and it has no real relevance on the historical events. the entire movement from marx to the fall of the soviet union and after is an evolving socio-political phenomenon. altogether, it can be described loosely as "communism", which is entirely accurate. just as the rise of the nation state and its centralised economic policies involving labour, banking and state can be described as "capitalism"

Ctrl + F: Resou - no results

Resource Based Economy bitches

>just as the rise of the nation state and its centralised economic policies involving labour, banking and state can be described as "capitalism"
yeah if you're retarded

that is the historical context of capitalism as a socio-political movement. if you disagree you are the retard

>that is the historical context of capitalism as a socio-political movement
just because you say that doesn't make it true
capitalism was birthed from a decentralized market with little to no state involvement

oh really? what market is that?

by fixing your conceptual stance so entirely against the ideological you've actually yourself become so ideological that you can't engage in a proper discussion with anyone who holds disagrees with your conceptual apparatus
your entire position can be ignored if someone were only to claim "that's not what i mean". from that point on, if you refuse to adapt, you're just talking to yourself.

when talking about communism, communists do not mean the market policies introduced throughout the USSR's lifespan
when talking about capitalism, capitalists do not mean the current state of affairs wherein the state spends 50% of the country's GDP every year, has its finger in every industry, has an absolute control of the monetary supply, etc.

you can claim that that's what a conversation is about, but you don't decide that alone. it's a mutual agreement.

if you want to show how the present is remotely related to communism or capitalism, you have to show that it is a direct result of the acceptance of capitalist or community theory
if you don't do this, you're not actually talking to anyone at all, about any thing at all.

in the same way, you cannot enter a discussion with a geometer regarding the measurements of a circle by claiming that the rim of a cup is the exact same thing as the abstracted circle of geometry. if you do this, you'll be denying that Pi*Diameter is equal to the circumference of a circle, while he'll be telling you that your cup rim is not a real circle

you're both right on your own conceptual apparatus, and are entirely incapable of discussing anything without first bridging this gap and agreeing upon a topic of discussion

America during the periods when it no central bank.

The Bank of England held jurisdiction before then

> if someone were only to claim "that's not what i mean
that is an omnipresent problem with all discussion. anyone can say "i dont agree", and that's that
the ideology cannot be divorced from the historical context. even if you take a pure ideological treatise, such as marx, it is meaningless without the historical context.

>america
do you mean the USA, colonial america, or pre columbian america?
because the USA definitely had centralised economic policies and its own centrally issued currency from 1777

capitalism is the degree to which the norm of private property is upheld in all aspects of a society

any designation of a country and/or time as 'capitalist' [or any other ideological category] is an attempt at a measurement, not a claim of absolute purity

capitalism was 'birthed' with the first recognition of property by any individual, and exists to the degree that this recognition is universalised

as such, absolute capitalism has never existed, and never will exist

Yeah I'm not talking about colonial times I'm talking about after the First Bank of the US was abolished up until the Second Bank of the US and then again after Andrew Jackson abolish the Second Bank of the US.

>the ideology cannot be divorced from the historical context. even if you take a pure ideological treatise, such as marx, it is meaningless without the historical context.

Is that so?
If that's the case, then even if it were to be shown to be analytically incorrect, you could claim to show that it were historically true - which is to claim that logic itself [law of contradiction inclusive] is an empirical and historical inductive phenomenon that is liable to falsification.

im not sure what you mean by "historically true", is that to say the prediction of communism might have turned out to be true?

>no central bank
>The Bank of North America was a private bank first adopted on May 26, 1781, by the Continental Congress, and opened in Philadelphia on January 7, 1782.[1][2][3] It was based upon a plan presented by US Superintendent of Finance Robert Morris on May 17, 1781[4] that created the Nation's first de facto central bank.

More along the lines of the notion that if Marx is wrong, then he is wrong in his analytics. This defect may (or will) manifest in applications of his theories to reality, but ultimately any manifest flaw of communism will be traceable to a defect in communistic theory - and since each theory [of political economy] necessarily contains within itself its own manner of interpreting historical phenomena, it seems to me that the only way to reconcile disagreements between a particular ideology's ideologue and someone outside of the ideology is to discuss the matter on terms of theory - since it's impossible for 'practice' to correctly condemn something which truly 'works on paper'.

you would have to first prove marx was wrong, which is a little hard to do

what don't you understand about the words "during the periods when" and "after _ was abolished"?

there is a 5 year gap between first and second banks. the 2nd bank lost its charter in 1832. the fed was made in 1913.
so youre saying the entire historical socio-political phenomenon known as capitalism only took place in an 80 year period only in the US?
you can believe whatever you want i guess

Attached: fuji2.jpg (1280x720, 153K)

>so youre saying the entire historical socio-political phenomenon known as capitalism only took place in an 80 year period only in the US?
yes, that was the greatest economic period in US history and was subsequently crushed by the big banking cartels that run the world

if it only lasted locally for 80 years, then it was basically a fluke

Perhaps so, but it's far easier than using empirical/historical data to prove communism false to a communist.

Thank God we still have shitposters here with a functioning brain.

Attached: apu.jpg (640x640, 35K)

>t. I dont have the slightest clue about history and macro economics

prove me wrong then faget. my history and economic knowledge demolishes yours

the USA pre 1913 became the most rich and powerful country on the planet thanks to a deflationary currency and free market capitalism devoid of any central bank meddling. now we have a weird commietalism hybrid where central banks dictate the economy and yet commietards think that somehow capitalism is at fault when we havent had real capitalism in over 100 years ever since the FED took control over the markets.

>lolbertarian spotted
go back to your peter schiff youtube clips faggot adults are talking

I mean we could talk about hitlers economic miracle instead. how he turned Germany from third world status to richest country in europe within 3 years by kicking out the bankers/speculators and introducing a work-backed, deflationary currency. but then you would call me a nazi instead lol. not that you have any arguments whatsoever of course.the reality is that with the increase of productivity and tech over the last 100 years we should all be getting rich but thanks to central bank meddling we are all getting poorer.

You sure showed him, retard.

Absolutely unironically unequivocally based

nazis are capitalist now? the rabbit hole goes pretty deep huh

cope

>robber barons
>birth of the corporation in america
>high tariffs on commodities like cotton
>labour union crackdowns
yea, the period before 1913 was so free market amirite

sips
>just imagine the acrylamide content in your body, kek
kek

if you actually read about economic policies from NSDAP you will find out that they took elements from capitalism and even libertarianism (Gottfried Feder his economic guru was in favor of zero taxation and Hitler even lowered taxes before WW2) and put them under the control of a strong state, so almost a form of national capitalism. the irony is that hitler was first and foremost a pragmatist and not an ideologue and he knew that taking control back over the banking and monetary system would turn around the German economy real fast, which it did. but I guess we're getting into too much of nuanced thinking here for commietards to follow along. because all you faggots understand is labels like capitalism, communism, libertarianism blabla without a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind these systems.

the fact that the nazis lowered nominal tax and were 'inspired' by 'libertarians' doesn't remotely make them friends of private property, kek

>national capitalism
yea when the nazis do it, its cool, but when the jews do it..

this. it is impossible to have a 100% pure rand idealist capitalist society, just like a purely 100% lennon communist. There will always be elements of fuckery throughout.

>And then boomers complain about millennials... fucking bullshit
To their credit, millenials are largly unresourceful perpetual children in greater numbers than any previous generation. But it is ironically the fault of boomer policies and parenting. They were too soft and allowed the massive faggotry to perpetuated that allowed the bullshit we experience now to have an audience to begin with. 40 years ago, someone claiming that more than two genders existed would not only be laughed at and ridiculed, but also made an example of for the direction we DON'T want society moving in.

Really, user? Boomers were the most degenerate of shits in the world. Sexually, socially, environmentally, etc. They are literal cancer. Of course cancer breeds more cancer. The question is whether the offspring of these cancer generations will become self-aware instead of idealizing becoming fatter and dumber.

If you're asking if capitalism is a mistake, you might as well ask if feudalism was a mistake. If you're going to ask if feudalism was a mistake, you should probably question if transitioning from slavery under the ancient romans into a marginally more egalitarian system under cristianity was a mistake. If you want to question slave based societies, maybe civilization itself after the paleolithic is your real enemy.

Congratulations, you are now a communist/anarchist or maybe some esoteric reactionary Evolist. Go to /lit/ and ask for directions on how to waste of time reading books about how bad human societies are and how smart you are for questioning everything.

Attached: 1551080008500.jpg (3548x2048, 860K)

But the enlightenment WAS a mistake

That's irrelevant. Most post-modernists also agree with this to some extent but also have their own even narrower version of the enlightment that they are actively constructing. No one really has the balls to reject the enlightment. Democracy, empiricism, rationalism, science, human rights, etc. Too big to fail.

Its failing right now, it just took 500 years to happen

Theres some gems in the thread I linked you should really check it out if you haven’t yet

Attached: 6D919E30-DAB3-4186-B5A2-4EE9730EB32E.png (912x469, 250K)

Attached: 948AEE4F-2DF8-4418-B232-F837D90B9ABC.jpg (480x360, 48K)

>its failing right now
Are we talking about progressivism or capitalism? Because progressivism progressivism is the definition of failure, it's only propped up by technical scientific achievements that have made material wealth sustainable on a progressively softer society. This is why 'progressives' worship science so much - they know it's the only thing that can sustain their lofty libertine, materialist and hyper egalitarian ideals. And even when tech is finally failing to catch up to their degeneracy, they triple down and use other abstractions as scapegoats. Be it racism, religion, whatever. They'll even blame both capitalism and socialism depending on what's happening. They'll side with neolibs or soc-dems whenever it's convenient. Economics is just a tool, not their priority.

It's simply a highly anti-fragile ideology/movement. You could point out how South Africa was materially wealthier, its population better educated and healthier under the Apartheid. Does this hurt their narrative at all? Of course not, if anything they double down on how much better a country is when it's properly democratized and how much of a victory SA represents to progressive values. Does it even matter if Mandela was a communist agitator? The progressive idiology is the natural conclusion of enlightment ideas.

Your focus on capitalism shows how great the enlightment is. You pretend to be against it, but you're probably a great defender of most of its other products, like everyone else. Fighting the enlightment because you hate capitalism is like fighting the catholic church by becoming a baptist.

But protestantantism didnt do too badly fighting against the catholics, just ended with a lot of collateral damage.
The nation state is coming to its end as the dominant social institution, as a result, capitalisn as we know it

>The nation state is coming to its end as the dominant social institution, as a result, capitalism
Capitalism isn't the enlightment. The end of the nation state will strenghen the enlightment as a movement, not weaken it.

Im thinking the collapse of the nation state reverts us back to some kind of feudalism structure, but desu i have no real idea what really comes next

>But protestantantism didnt do too badly fighting against the catholics, just ended with a lot of collateral damage.
I know this is my analogy not yours, but It's still funny of you say this when the protestant movement was one of the major pieces to give rise to modern capitalism.
>Im thinking the collapse of the nation state reverts us back to some kind of feudalism structure
Not even fucking close, are you even paying attention? The end of the nation state will advance us to an even more imperialistic post-national structure where state controlled (and controlling) corporations will reign unchallenged.

>the end of the nation state will result in a larger state structure
Possible, but i dont see a world or regional state happening. There will be corporations and no nationstate - which is some kind of neofeudalism where stockholders own the property and everyone else is a serf or entertainer.

I agree with you but I've never seen someone else say this

>There will be corporations and no nationstate
There is already little distinction between a corporation and a State. A corporation wouldn't want to be without a state, and in the lack of it they would band toguether to produce one. The only thing preventing them from banding together and producing a giant state right now is what little cultural and tribalist notions the plebs hold together. If this wasn't the case, the entirety of the western continent would function virtually like China under a single rainbow banner.

Actually it also worked in south america until the UK and the empire of brazil did their thing

Capitalism didnt even exist in the 1600s you retard

>which is some kind of neofeudalism where stockholders own the property and everyone else is a serf or entertainer.
This is already what happens right now, too. You're just describing it in very unpleasant terms. Anything that could be truly called 'neofeudalism' would only happen if some military class rose to power and destroyed the current joint-stock corporate structure and in its place established some sort of military rule independent of "stockholders" and more based on raw trust between the leaders and his lieutenents over resource/land they are administrating. That would look more like feudalism.

Huh

progressive corporatism brought on by leftists who fall for lobbyist propaganda and support government-enforced de facto monopolies =/= capitalism

Capitalism is a nebulous term. Most people just think of it as joint-stock corporations, in this case what you described is also capitalism. The real problem is when communists call something like the USSR "state capitalism", then the term truly becomes meaningless, just leftist jargon for "evil economic system that I don't like"