Is it possible to have capitalism without it degenerating into consumerism?

No, it's not. Capitalism is cancer but socialism is even worse.

Attached: Beaver on self-sufficency.png (1896x1752, 1.56M)

Attached: What is Fascism.png (886x1322, 125K)

Attached: NatSoc.jpg (1024x878, 196K)

Attached: Beaver on Money.jpg (1903x1586, 803K)

Attached: Libertarianism.png (1231x441, 25K)

Capitalism doesn't work, bro. It's 20 fucking 18 already, you're kinda late

yes. It was called conservatism.

The bot went full infograph derailing, but we should still be able to discuss things.

It does works as it's an objective way to exchange resources, what doesn't works it's anything else, as we made individualism the engine of society and we assume that people it's nothing but egocentrical machines.

Nobody is forced to participate in consumerism, only encouraged. Quit acting like it's the equivalent of being thrown in a commie gulag.

yes, but it requires a rewiring of human nature which is materialistic and greedy from birth
it can be done through proper education (teach minimalism to the youth)

Exchange my ass you fucking twat, everything should be free

Yes, literally every country but America is like that.

Civic Nationalisim

>Her dur there is nothing wrong with making money I love working for my Jewish boss

Attached: eXaq3pNtR1sl3FTTRxu4vyTBfIj6Hu9zZYpBPeTB8gE.png (500x583, 100K)

What stops hoarders then?

>degenerating into consumerism
without consumerism we'd stop doing donuts on the bridge that capitalism is meant to be between feudalism and socialism.
Only non-tertiary educated spergs would argue with that, since the social and economic measures taken by robber barons to stop that happening when Marx pointed it out proved he was right.
Either society gets collapsed into a small component of the marketplace, or the marketplace becomes a component of society, i don' t pretend to know which will happen.

>Is it possible to have capitalism without it degenerating into consumerism?
Capitalism with a small state? You mean a mixed market economy? Then no, because freedom breeds tyranny. As the country becomes richer due to it's free trade the government sees that wealth, promises to recourse some of it for favors to others and so begins the cycle of republicanism, democracy, socialism, communism, etc.
The only way to prevent this cycle and keep the wealth is to privatize the state's services.

>everything should be free
True, but your neighbor's need to have more and better shit than you so he can get that girl you want is a strong motivator to stupidity and waste, as well as mayhem.

Yes. But it is a natural outcome of brainlets acquiring wealth.

As an atheist, I believe church, strong families and shared values are a great antidote to a lot of the degeneracy today.

hoarding = capitalism

capitalism is based on degeneracy, self delusion, greed, consumerism, pollution, overpopulation, overexploitation and so on

capitalism can't survive when there is balance, moderation or self restrain

so, no

Not really it can be a mental disease.

>The only way to prevent kikes in government is to give kikes all control in a private sector

Attached: 1519241020251.jpg (699x919, 214K)

Capitalism is an economic system
Consumerism is a societal state

Theyre not even in the same category and are not so interwoven that removal of one causes collapse of the other (they are somewhat interwoven obviously)

To some extend it is also consumerism that creates a NECESSITY for better technology which becomes a DEMAND which capitalism then replies too, the two essentially create a natural feedback-production loop

In general it is the most viable method of technological progress outside of war

So asking if you want to be rid of consumerism in a capitalist economy is as following;
>>Do we want technological advancement
>No
To the ground with either
>Yes
Its either this or constant war

Right, because none of those things ever occurred in communist countries.
Suck start a gun.

>everything should be free
impossible, even in a world with no money, everything produced cost a minimum of someone's time and resources
leave your parents house and get a job maybe you'll realize that life isn't a Marxist fairy tale

>capitalism can't survive when there is balance
Wrong.
Free market will decide the survival of anything. If there's a decline in population then what ever is affected is affected.

consider that consumerism is not an actual doctrine but just a boogeyman concept created by the opponents of capitalism. Nobody calls themselves a consumerist.

wrong
materialism (which leads to hoarding) exists independently of capitalism
just pick up any history book and you'll notice that the emperors, the monarchs, the pharaohs, the religious leaders, even the dear leaders of communist countries, always surrounded themselves with more luxuries than necessary.
Those in history who could afford to hoarder and be materialistic always did so, the only difference between capitalism and the other system is that under capitalism, more people can afford to hoarder useless shit and not just your dear leaders

Hoarding = the sin of greed
Sins overlap among all economical systems and is not inherent to capitalism

The fact that you believe means you have toddler level understanding of economics

What you actually deserve is to be paraded around like the village idiot

I feel since capitalism's model is about excess, many people (if they have disposable income) will choose to consume things that give them the most happiness or utility. This of course is a double edged sword as capitalism aims to produce an abundance of products however it is up to the people to choose how they spend.

I think is wise in his rationing as I've managed to practise that myself therefore avoiding overspending or debt but is correct. A very important aspect of capitalism is CHOICE and nobody is forcing you to do anything. It's merely an exchange of services and any problems you bring up financially are your own fault.

Attached: the-worlds-top-10-best-images-of-cats-with-mo-L-E6VOnZ.jpg (460x326, 21K)

Yeah but only capitalism firmly believed that greed was enough to organize society.

No. Capitalism thrives on man's vices. Advising people to "make better choices" isn't enough and will never, ever be enough.

Attached: Commies are red, Fascist are red, the details can wait 'til the caps are dead.png (1313x1013, 1.06M)

I guarantee every person in OP's protest has a current gen iphone and and ipad to go with it. They have probably never gone longer than 18 months without upgrading to the most current apple product.

Yes, remove pluralism and keep some form of identity to be shared among the people. If a man sees himself in his community and fellow man, he will support and protect it. The problem is when you inject different diametrically opposing ideologies and cultures into a nation, people self segregate, those small communities may work better together, but it actually harms the state overall. Pluralism is the cancer of the West.

No, it believed self interest was.

Thats a rather baseless claim, first of all it implies capitalism had a thought father who held greed as the highest virtue, if you look at capitalism however that seems to be far from the truth

Capitalism enables people to find the work they want to do by creating a demand for doing what people want to do and you get paid on top

Capitalism is the only system in which your neighbour who happens to be a proper mechanic helps you out with car problems after dinner for a friendly fee or maybe even for free because his mechanical expertise has given him such a vast income that he is wealthy enough to be altruistic, a good neighbour

In communism for example it would be a state appointed mechanic you never met before after waiting who knows how long who looks at the car while you starve in the gulag for damaging government property (the car)
>The starving part in the gulag is mostly a joke but you get my point on community efficiency and self reliability

>>manifesto is communism
yes - its called "the communist manifesto".
Outdated or not - Is central banking and main tenant of communism? - yes.
I dont understand how your argument in any way refutes the contents page of the manifesto - the COMMUNIST manifesto. How does them seeing it as "historic" make CENTRAL BANKING as not a main tenant?

Capitalism is only one side of the coin. It merely describes the economic doctrine. This is the same with communism.
It shows how well hidden the cultural policies have become and how entrenched people have become, fighting over the same hill whilst ignoring the other equally important.
Take national socialism. It is a nationalised economy with a socialist culture. You could have a national theocrism.
Capitalism and communism are both globalism described in different ways.
A better way to describe today's system is global nepotism as it is a global economy that places the highest value on (((blood lines))).
And what of communism, well it is the crook to capitalisms hook. To shift power and wealth to a select few. You simply walk in and take everything by force.
Capitalism is the soft approach, you skim every transaction via a tax or usery. This the more transactions, the more skimming.

So to your original question. Why does global nepotism denigrate to consumerism?
It is a means to the ends, a fulfilling of it's purpose.

What's wrong with consumerism?

capitalism depends on dumb women buying shit they dont need

No, consumerism is in human nature. What you need is regulation on production and imports so that you don't waste fucking over 50% of produced goods by throwing them away.

>inb4 fucking commie

Consumers aren't rational. Their choices can be easily manipulated by those who have money and power to the point where free will no longer exist. Resources are also finite and will be monopolized by those who have more market power, making innovation through competition impossible, or rather possible only if it benefits those who hold a position of supremacy within the market itself.

Capitalism is shit. So is communism. They are two faces of the same shitty medal that thinks that human societies can be regulated and explained through economics.

no

I mostly agree with what you have to say and would like to add that the king of the hill strugle between capitalism and communism can start out on a national level but can only efficiently interact with other likewise systems

A communist state which is not fully self relient, in the sense that it needs foreign trade to acquire some resources like specific building materials, fuels or food products will get eaten alive if the only providers of said resources are capitalist states

In a sense capitalism and communism can be regarded as a trade format and the current struggle is mankind trying to find an answer on which global trade format to use

If every nation could decide on the same format or if capitalist and communist societies could agree on not trading with one another it wouldnt need to be globally imposed because it would be nationally decided, because neither of those however are realistic the strugle has escalated to a global one

Mankind has connected the world, in this it has made all problems global and is probably the make or break point of our species

fpbp

Only Americans would call such rhetoric Communist.
Anything that isn't laissez-faire is Communist to them.

gringos never learn

Attached: 1505210776328.png (2211x1451, 820K)

Not really, it’s all degenerate.

That seems to be our main issue, what do we do with shitty people?

Very well put.
Only five or so countries in the world do not trade in central bank currency brother, capatalist, communist or otherwise. Imagine people in a theater watching the scariest movie ever. Now imagine it being filmed.
I would suggest you stop thinking about the film and consider how the show is put together.

>'The world is not dying, it is being killed and the people killing it have names and addresses'

I am a firm believer that Capitalism combined with a limited regulatory government (much like the one the United States has) is the best system for improving the quality of life for every individual involved in the society. I also believe that consumerism isn't as easily achieved as this post is making it out to be. Every comment related to capitalism causing consumerism is ignorant of so many government regulations that prevent over consumption; while simultaneously stinking of the removal of rights for the individual to choose what they want to do.

Convince me otherwise.

Attached: 1522097582594.jpg (2000x2668, 1.37M)

This is fundamentally wrong. Assuming consumers can be easily manipulated by rich people assumes that rich people are not consumers. You can be a producer and a consumer at the same time, in fact consuming is inherent to producing.

Monopolies fail my friend, they also cannot exist within any major free market. Throughout history the only examples of monopolization have been done by the state or with the help of the state. Anti-Trust laws literally make it impossible in the United States to own a monopoly on anything other than intellectual property; which I find nothing wrong with (one should be entitled to the product of ones ideas).

After reading your insightful comment I thought I'd just stroke you for a second and say that from what I can tell you are very intelligent! A rare find on Jow Forums.