the world really went to shit after the collapse of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin wall.
before that, capitalism was held in check by the prospect of socialism, but after the collapse the 1% felt that now the whole world belongs to it, they installed Neo Liberalism, Capitalism became Global, Debt slavery became the norm in the US, the financial oligarchy of the EU was established and economical logic was applied to all spheres of life.
having defeated socialism, capitalism became One. only now, its has nowhere to go, nowhere, that is, but to its grave.
wow this is so retarded it can't even be serious. the USA particularly and also global politics has moved consistently to the left wing over the course of the 20th century and into the 21st. that's why things are shit now. you want things to be free and perfect and beautiful again? return the USA to it's pre-1913 way of functioning. the second we had income taxes we became a socialist state. that's the fact.
Humanity has no destiny that is not extinction. Capitalism will never fail as people are culled and complacent. Even the faggots like you who shill on websites like this. Suck off a shotgun to the max. SAGE
>somebody will knock on the door of your nice middle class gated community
>implying that i live in a gated community
>implying that the middle class in america still exists
>implying that nobody knocked on the doors of people after the 2008 crash and not only didnt left them a room to live in but kicked them out of the house entirely
>the only left wing turn in american politics took place during Roosevelt, he taxed the rich 97% and was reelected 4 times. ok well that's fiction but yeah the new deal was the socialization of america, no doubt, in conjunction with the passage of the 16th amendment in 1913. it laid the ground work for all of the problems and issues we face today. really? that's your only real rebuttle? "but i don't live in a gated community!". come on dude. and yeah, big government fucking sucks, doesn't it? it creates all sorts of problems. you're so right, our current LEFT WING ECONOMIC SYSTEM makes tons of problems and screws over the people.
it still wasnt' that long ago in the USA that you could walk out to a patch of land that was unclaimed and claim it as your own.
wouldn't freedom be nice? government has fucked us all.
Bentley Phillips
i mean you understand that all of those big corporations you hate so badly (i hate them too) are literally propped up and created by big government, right? they're surviving off of subsidies, crony contracts with the government, insane tax breaks that ensure that nobody can ever compete with them, and REGULATIONS that strangle the little guy, leaving them as monopolies.
all of these are LEFT WING PROBLEMS. they are created by big governments who have been given too much authority over our lives, too much tax revenue, too much power.
government is inherently corrupt. face it. stop tryin to grow it. stop trying to be part of the problem.
even google is receiving BILLIONS (WITH A B) in free bandwidth, courtesy of the US government. >A study in December 2008 estimated Google's 'free' bandwidth use to be about $6.9 billion, today it could be double that amount. this article was written in 2010. i can only presume the problem is much worse now. >siliconvalleywatcher.com/googles-billions-in-internet-subsidies/
the "out of control" capitalism you're talking about is what defeated the reds
Reagan was 1980 remember. besides, the commies did most of the work defeating themselves
Ethan Mitchell
You are the 1% retard
Liam Lopez
and it's sometimes VERY difficult to actually track where subsidies and special permissions, crony contracts and tax breaks go. it's not all written down nicely and neatly for everyone to see. here's an article with some more egregious examples though: >mic.com/articles/85101/10-corporations-receiving-massive-public-subsidies-from-taxpayers#.uNRuhom8W the corporate state is created by the government. that's why we didnt have the corporate problem we have now until our government became so much bigger and so much more left wing. you can say "muh reaganism" but from where i'm standing "muh reaganism" was left-wing too. it's all a matter of relativism. as far as i'm concerned anytime the government gets involved it's going to make problems. and wealth inequality continued to grow under both clinton and obama. and they quitely passed legislation that effectively created monopolies, like the clinton telecommunications act of 1994, which is why you have all of these media outlets today all owned by the same handful of companies and people.
Adrian Foster
>it still wasnt' that long ago in the USA that you could walk out to a patch of land that was unclaimed and claim it as your own. crazy to think that this practice only legally ended in 1976. for fucks sake, if only life was that simple still.
Gavin Sanchez
The world really went to shit after humans started walking this earth, comrade.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts#End_of_homesteading obviously overpopulation is a reason why we can't homestead anymore, but it highlights the simplicity of life without overbearing government intervention. and without all of the social safety nets government has created, we would have had some natural selection over hte last 100 years, leading to a healthier, more independent and much stronger race. for gods sake, i know i would want to be born free and independent, rather than weak and cucked to nationalized healthcare and legally bound to the economic service of the state, if i had a choice.
Xavier Miller
Wow you sure are mad bro.
Explain to me how this "big government" of yours can possibly be socialist if its spending money on propping up capitalistic corporations instead of spending on public works, housing, and other programs like this?
In fact its just the opposite: The supposed "Free Market" system that the right loves to extol is nothing but a sham. In fact right-wingers actually spend more on government. Just look at the massive military spending under Reagan and Trumps plan to end NAFTA and create a fucking Space Army for god sakes. With Democrats they've sold the illusion through the media of being "left-wing" which actually means they can spend more time working slashing the public sector and supporting private enterprise.
Luis Ramirez
this
he cant get through his head the Capitalism IS the government. he refuses to see what everybody knows: the big business OWNS Washington
The rich have control the liberal government from the beginning of the revolution. That's why the federalist often got there way. The government has been giving corporation tax breaks and creating monopolies from the begining. The capitalist bourgeoisie create big government. As long as there is a ruling bourgeois class there will be big 'left wing government' to steal from the working class.
Lincoln King
>Wow you sure are mad bro. honestly, i can't believe you people. this is your answer to everything. anytime someone talks to you or engages with you, this is what you say to them. so stupid. i just took the time to get citations and news articles and examples, and clearly explain a lot of things in a very polite and concise way, and this is the fucking response the commies come back with. so fucking typical. i don't know why i even bother. >Explain to me how this "big government" of yours can possibly be socialist if its spending money on propping up capitalistic corporations instead of spending on public works, housing, and other programs like this? it's literally wealth redistribution, but "oh noes" the government isn't redistributing the wealth the way you see fit! and it's corrupt! well that's what happens under socialism, isn't it? you get a few people in the political class at the top screwing people over, and everyone else at the bottom has to suffer. you don't like the governments corrupts policies and tendencies? too bad! you have no say. >In fact its just the opposite: The supposed "Free Market" system that the right loves to extol is nothing but a sham. In fact right-wingers actually spend more on government. then they aren't really right-wingers, are they? they're fairly fucking left ultimately, maybe just right of our own subjective "center" in the USA and in the west today. >Just look at the massive military spending under Reagan and Trumps plan to end NAFTA and create a fucking Space Army for god sakes. military spending is pretty much a necessity when you have hostile powers with nuclear weapons pointed at you, unfortunately. but saying "look how corrupt politicians spend money!" is not helping your argument. you're making my argument for me....
Juan Adams
>With Democrats they've sold the illusion through the media of being "left-wing" which actually means they can spend more time working slashing the public sector and supporting private enterprise. all "left-wing" government is illusion. in practice it NEVER ends up serving the people the question is why you still want to put more power into the hands of the government. the solution is for you to look in the mirror and reexamine your own beliefs. you're only proving that government is inherently corrupt and therefore should be severely limited and restricted. again, you're making my argument for me, not making an argument that's beneficial to "your side".
Brody Foster
>wealth redistribution
you know what that is? its taking the money of the rich and building roads, pension systems, welfare, hospitals, schools etc...
its called living in a society, and if you cancel this arrangement there will be hoards and hoards of destitute people and those will set up a full blown revolution. FDR knew this:
>the two great social welfare expansions in America occurred in response to the crises of the 1930s and those of the 1960s. In August 1931, over eight million citizens were unemployed. By 1933, that number would be closer to 15 million. The production of a relief system to absorb this growing mass was slow and widely resisted in America. This was the country where one was supposed to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. The New Deal in the 30s and the Great Society programs of the 60s both had “the preservation of capitalism at all times in view” as a Time magazine article about the New Deal put it. But what exactly threatened capitalism at these times? The fear was in the dissolution of civility and good morals among the unemployed. Having no work, men wandered. It became less likely for them to marry and settle down. They may turn to crime or riots to take what they want or need. Even worse, they may meet with other disenfranchised unemployed and simply begin organizing to get what they need. It took the Great Depression and millions to be unemployed together on the street for the sentiment to change from individual shame at being unemployed to recognizing it as an inherent and desired part of a capitalist economy.
Matthew Cooper
>In Chicago, a group of around five-thousand unemployed organized a march on relief offices demanding free meals, free lodging, tobacco, and the right to hold Council meetings. When the relief funds were cut by 50%, they marched again and the cut was rescinded. There were rent riots in New York and Chicago’s primarily black neighborhoods. Groups would gather to return an evicted tenant’s furniture back into their apartment, even if that meant fighting landlords and police. After one riot in Chicago in 1931 during which three cops were injured, evictions were temporarily suspended and work relief was doled out to the rioters.
>Communist, anarchist, and socialist groups were beginning to look a lot more attractive to the unemployed and with riots becoming more common and unemployment still on the rise, one could speak of a “mass disorder” by the mid-30s. The New Deal (though it made some concessions that more hard-line American ideologues were uncomfortable with) was designed to steal that thunder and return the unemployed to work where they would become stable again. Roosevelt put it in simple terms: “I am fighting Communism, Huey Longism, Coughlinism, Townsendism,” he told an emissary of William Hearst in 1935, “I want to save our system, the capitalistic system; to save it is to give some heed to world thought of today. I want to equalize the distribution of wealth.” Direct relief is never the goal. By 1934, Roosevelt was calling for its dissolution. “Continued dependence upon relief” he said to Congress in 1935, “induces a spiritual and moral disintegration.” Direct relief may even have the opposite of the intended result that workers might begin to realize that there is no need to work if they can extract a living from relief agencies.
Logan Miller
>you know what that is? its taking the money of the rich and building roads, pension systems, welfare, hospitals, schools etc... ok but now we're getting directly to why communism fails.... that's what you WANT it to be. you WANT all of those things, but guess what? government is corrupt, and it doesn't GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU. and all of the corruption and horror that you see in our political system today, and rightly point out, is the result of GOVERNMENT (obviously and indisputably, government corruption is because of government).
the problem with you is that you're saying "OUR GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT! ROTTEN! IT DOES ALL OF THESE HORRIBLE THINGS! SO LETS TAKE MORE RIGHTS AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE AND GIVE THAT GOVERNMENT MORE POWER OVER THEM! BECAUSE I'M CERTAIN THAT THIS TIME THEY'LL DO THE RIGHT THING!"
and then whenever the government doesn't do the right thing you turn around and say "Well that wasn't real communism". perpetually and willfully blind to the reason why it didn't end up being your own perfect little perfect utopian ideal of what "real communism" is. >muh FDR to be honest with you, it's not unemployment and poverty that scares me so long as people know how to build, repair, grow, hunt and feed themselves. it's the fact that it's not in a government's inherent interest for its own peopel to be self-sufficient. it's governments interest for them to be ignorant and needy and dependent. that way they make the most efficient slaves. that's why we don't learn any basic primitive and crucial skills in our school systems (like foraging, hunting, building). and they didn't learn those things in the USSR either. government does not want you to be strong or indpedent.
so let the fucking economy crash for all i care, so long as people can take care of themselves they have no need of money. but they'll never be able to take care of themselves so long as uncle sam is breaking their legs to sell them a wheelchair.
Jordan Brooks
i mean i also have to point out that the great depression was specifically caused by income taxes and the socialization of the USA. i mean that much is obvious.
Cooper Ward
do you really think this is a coincidence? this completely follows the exact same template as socialism every time. works for a few years, then ends in disaster. i dont think income taxes are the sole cause in the case of the depression, but they were a factor IMO.
i dont get why you people always have to be such angry dicks. i'm just talking to you. no idea why you always have such chips on your shoulder.
so hunting makes you angry for some reason. great. well it should be noted that the majority of that "wildlife exterminated for profit" happened post new deal, so you would seem to be destroying your own argument.
also the means of building things are not privately owned. you can build with anything. you can build with sand and gravel and make a very strong home that will withstand storm and retain heat and provide you with everything you need from a shelter. right now the only issue with that is that the government wont LET you build unless you build it to their code and specifics (which require expensive materials. see how this scam works? every regulation is written by government for the sake of big business, the average pleb is just too stupid to understand it.)
people like you have no concept of how to take care of themselves. you grow up in cities (im presuming) where everything comes from money and the dollar. you're so totally enslaved to it that it never even occurs to you to be self-sufficient and independent from it. then you turn around and spit on "muh rural retards" like me who actually know how to live outside of the rotten economic system.
the irony is that you're still spinning a circle complaining about the economic system and crying your eyes out about it, while you look down on the people who are mostly removed from it and consider them "beneath you".
i pity you guys is the fact.
Dominic Long
yeah no. if you are leftist you are literally fighting for more government. so no. i mean there are plenty of "creatures left to hunt" lol. you keep saying this, but the woods are full of animals. you would also not have the massive overpopulation problem you have right now if not for the lefts prized "muh social safety nets"
actually if you are an environmentalist you pretty much have to renounce leftism and social safety nets. you have to recognize that natural selection keeps a balance in nature and that in order to make room for life to thrive, those that aren't fit for the planet and the environment have to die off. i mean that sounds really ugly, but that's the truth if you want to claim to be "an environmentalist".
no real way to suggest a world with 25 billion humans is going to be a good thing for "muh earth".
Adam Baker
i mean think about it. the mentality is "i distrust the government, so lets give them more power!". same as "donald trump is hitler! lets give him our guns!" or "police are killers" (which i agree with) "lets make sure they're the only ones with guns!"
no. if you're a leftist and you any genuine distrust of government you need to realize you've been lied to and manipulated by people who don't really care at all about your freedom. they want your guns becasue they want to enslave you. they pander to gays because they're angry, but under socialism homsoexuality becomes illegal because they need more families and workers. they promise "welfare for all" but then under socialism they throw the "parasites" in gulags, or the secret police puts a bullet in them.
false promises.
if you distrust government you can't be a leftist unless you're really dumb.
Adrian Reed
look man, im not angry.. the internet is not a place to be angry in....
what do you mean "take care of themselves"??
can i just dump you in the middle of some place naked and say to you " take care of yourself" ?
when you work for some corporation at minimum wage and you are neck deep in debt with no healthcare, is that you "taking care of yourself?"
there are 2 class in capitalist societies. the rich and everybody else. if the rich "take care of themselves" the poor loose.
if the poor "take care of themselves" the rich hang.
that's it. if a homeless guy have no home and he needs to "take care of himself" he squats a building, the rich call the cops on him, the poor guy calls his friends and now we have a battle. a riot. 2 class's taking care of themselves.
>can i just dump you in the middle of some place naked and say to you " take care of yourself" ? yes absolutely. my parents literally taught my how to do that as soon as i was old enough to understand simple concepts in the world. most of the people i grew up with could do the same. >there are 2 class in capitalist societies. the rich and everybody else. if the rich "take care of themselves" the poor loose. well there are two classes in socialist society too, the political class and everyone else. of course in the USSR we ended up with "The Nomenclatura", thus the famous saying "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others". the beautiful thing about FREEDOM (you can call it capitalism if you want, but it's really freedom) is that it doesn't have to be stratified at all. it's about individuality. its about yourself. the only thing that matters is your own feelings towards yourself. >if the poor "take care of themselves" the rich hang. when someone infringes upon rights you should hang them. like Nestle wanting to privatize the water supply. but again, they're working in conjunction with government to do that. or how about the local governments that outlaw collecting rainwater? or raw milk? or selling chicken eggs? or any of the stupid retarded things that governments outlaw. these are COMPULSORY things and yet the left never gets mad about them because "muh government is perfect".
government is corrupt, not perfect.
when someone infringes upon your rights in some legal way, you have the right to hang them. you don't have the right to hang them just because they're doing well for themselves and nobody ever taught you how to take care of yourself. i mean you may do it anyway because you see it as self-preservation, but you certainly dont have any "moral high ground" over them.......
Aaron Morgan
>that's it. if a homeless guy have no home and he needs to "take care of himself" he squats a building, the rich call the cops on him, the poor guy calls his friends and now we have a battle. a riot. 2 class's taking care of themselves. congratulations, you just became a far right winger. now you see the evil and compulsory nature of government. "vagrancy laws" are horrendously corrupt and malignant. the government outlaws your very existence. that's how evil and rotten it is. and this is the entity you want to put MORE control and authority into. i think if you really reflect honestly on what we're discussing here, you will have to admit i am right. IDGAF about being right though honestly, all i want is for my children to have a free world where they are not enslaved by anyone.
problem is you can't just point out flaws in our current system and say "well that's capitalism" when it's actually not capitalism. esp not when it's literally big and overreaching government. but even in the case of corporate slavery, it's a situation that was created through big government corruption.
you literally can't look at any of it and say "well the problem here is too much freedom!" in every case the root cause goes back to there not being enough freedom somewhere along the line. presuming you actually understand the full context of the situation.
Lincoln Scott
but if you are a "left winger" you do. i don tfin dit interesting. i know wall about the anarchist philosophy "we will abolish the government through growing the government and repressing everyone we dont like". that's horrendous and sociopathic. i do think that if you really care about freedom you will want to CREATE FREEDOM and you will also accept on some level that humanity has to be accountable to its own actions.
if humanity fails and dies off, then that's natures will. nature is beautiful and harsh at the same time. sucks but that's how it is.
if you don't have freedom, you have nothing.
people who are "anarchists" (meaning communist) are control freaks with a god complex, trying to get their sick rocks off IMO.
i'm not trying to say you're sick or insult you, i'm just saying in general that's what that philosophy is about. it's the most malignant and horrifying ideology ever conceived of and it has a track record to show.
Easton White
>the beautiful thing about FREEDOM (you can call it capitalism if you want, but it's really freedom) is that it doesn't have to be stratified at all. it's about individuality. its about yourself. the only thing that matters is your own feelings towards yourself. i just want to add one thing to this. what im saying is it's only perceived as "stratified" when you dont know how to take care of yourself. unfortunately when it comes to big government they have a vested interest in making you stupid and ignorant and helpless. they NEED you to keep working for those corporations (or co-op farms in the case of socialism) to produce or pay off the governments debt. so they keep you stupid and enmeshed in this stratification system. you people (communists) are obsessed with the hierarchy and stratification because you dont know how to take care of yourself.
go out to rural areas, you see nobody there gives a fuck about "muh hierarchies" one way or the other because they all know how to take care of themselves.
some rich fuck in a suit thinks he's better than me? ok. cool. good for him. that's his issue i guess. has nothing to do with me. i don't need him for anything.
but urban dwelling socialists DO need that guy for EVERYTHING and that's why it lights a fire under their ass so much.
but the problem they face isn't capitalism, it's big government that indoctrinated them from day 1 with stupid nonsense shit (like "the humanities" in school) and fluoridated their water and made it illegal for them to even camp out in a national forest without government permission.
Lucas Sanchez
maaaaaaaaaaaaaan you really succeeded in exhorting me look, capitalism is not freedom, its the opposite of freedom, its fucking death. remember the indians- those people were really free and independent and the capitalist could not stand seeing free and independent people so they mostly had them killed and domesticated.
when you sell you're labor you are a slave. not an indepandant person.
now. watch this redpill film. it was made by free and independent people.
i gotta go user. i'll try to get back and respond to you, but i got some stuff im gonna do. either way it was nice talking to you bro. hope whatever issues you're dealing with end up going well for you.
Kayden Price
>look, capitalism is not freedom, its the opposite of freedom, its fucking death. no it's literally the absense of restrictions. it only FEELS like slavery to you because you NEED the social hierarchy to survive. you've become a slave to it, rather than an individual, and so if you can't control others you will either perish or be a slave. that's the fault of the government. that's the fault of your parents to some degree (sorry, dont mean to rag on them) and it's the fault of your community to some degree.
ok i really do have to go though. like i said, i will try to respond but i might not be able to.
Josiah Hall
oh one more thing before i go. lets be real here. we're both advocating for radical overhauls to our government and social system. you want control and authoritarianism, i want freedom and liberty. but we obviously don't get to look at the system that exists now and say "well capitalism is slavery!" when the system is really much less a capitalist system than it is a left-wing socialist system (INB4 "that's not what socialism is blah blah blah. it actually is though, more than it isnt).
John Collins
Well, you can say million times but they wouldn't understand. Let them take the unemployment and no minimum wage pills after the next crisis.
Cameron Baker
You're right since statistically wages and productivity split from each other and the gini coefficient in the west skyrocketed after the fall of the soviet union. This definetely makes sense since a viable marxist leninist state was not only a physical but also a political threat to western systems. Truly the collapse of the soviet union created the perfect growing place for post modernist liberalism since it created the extreme economic inequality which is necessary to maintain post modernist lifestyles, and also it destroyed old school marxism which allowed post marxist thought to take its place.
Julian Jenkins
but how do we make people true leftists instead of neoliberals or nationalists, that is the real question
Angel Bennett
The post modern society actually kind of reminds me of the second industrial revolution. You have the bourgeoise which is detached form reality and living in absolute luxury afforded to them by the pitiful merit of having been born from the right vagina, which is contrasted with the proletariat living in absolute misery. If you strugle to make ends meet you will have no time for choosing which of the 65 genders you are. The bourgeoise might have switched balls and banguets to pride parades and the proletariat might have gone from coal miners to minimum wage slaves, but the same structure is still in place.
Austin Gray
I agree. Post USSR the globalists started pushing mass migration into our countries too. Say what you want about the USSR, they held our elites in check.
Luke Cook
US started as a "limited government" and look at where it's now. Stop believing in fairytails told to you by repcucks.
Matthew Turner
This is some deep leftypol shit.
Nolan Gomez
>started >250 years ago yeah. exactly. lol.
Matthew Parker
The current world is similar to Roman Empire after the suppression of Spartacus rebellion and movement of Jesus Christ. The elite class bathed in decadent, the slaves lost all hope, while Christianity was corrupted and turned into a tool of elite class
Jeremiah Powell
According to you it has been a plutocracy for already more than a hundred years. We are down to 150 years, but ah here's a catch, most of that was spent as an agrarian society. In reality we find that once US had industrialized it only took it a couple of decades for it to transform into the plutocracy you complain now about. That is not a very good prognosis for a limited government.
Zachary Garcia
The real chains to break, is from Communism and socialism.
i said its been socialist for a hundred years, not a plutocracy. government being corrupt and in bed with wealthy people isn't the same as it being a plutocracy. you're either strawmanning me or misunderstanding.
also the logical path of "the government did not stay limited, therefore this proves limited government does not work" is pretty damn weak. like lol, just keep the government limited, damn. it's not that hard. esp if you wanted to create a libertarian state with only some laws against monopolies or maybe with high marginal tax rates, leaving everything else capitalist and libertarian. if done right, that could be good too. but either way you need small government and free people otherwise you will end up in total human slavery like the USSR was.
Noah Harris
I am very black pilled in this sense as I do believe true socialism is simply too big brained for most people to handle. What worries me is that our current system might just recreate itself and in 50 years we'll find ourselves in the same situation. Probably the easiest way to impliment socialism is if a solar flaire wipes out all electronics, have you watched videos by Varg Vikernes? He might not think of himself as a socialist, but he definetely advocates for socialist economics.
Aiden Nelson
There are no historical examples of small governments remaining small so all systems have to be designed with the assumption that eventually there will be government interference, in the case of capitalism, regulatory capture is to be expected in all cases. Just hoping that it won't happen will not stop it from happening.
Zachary Flores
hot take redpill: we need a few socialist countries to keep the US in check but the US must never become socialist itself
Asher Jackson
This is why the left can't unify.
Luis Green
Capitalism only works if most of society is agricultural and with no banks.
>Probably the easiest way to impliment socialism is if a solar flaire wipes out all electronics now you're talking. I laugh because all the non-racist arguments from Jow Forums about "save our economy from muh globalists" are basically the exact same arguments a socialist or anarchist would make.
I can't take varg seriously after his nazi-lite rpg game. i still like his early music though
Nicholas Walker
I notice that you guys always think of social system as something "works" or "not-works", this frame of utilitarian thinking will get us into endless debate. Instead, we should frame the problem into a more natural way. Capitalism, like every kind of social system, is a living entity. It grew from specific conditions, it developed itself during its lifespan, and finally comes to an end after running out of its vitality. Then what is the vitality of a society? It's the labour force, our system must come an end not because it does not work, but because at our current era, it destroys labour, it turn labour into low level and destructive thing. Capitalism will die because it is killing its own life force
Jaxson Fisher
I'm not supporting your faggoty ideology and never will.
Pol is very socialist lite when it comes to economics, but that shouldn't surprise anybody. Post modern economics are such a failiure that you'd have to be clinically insane to support them, but what do you expect from economics which are detached from reality which they try to describe? I believe there's even a quote from milton friedman or hayek where he says that economic theory cannot be proven or disaproven, he'd fit right along with adorno and the frankfurt school, just from the economic angle.
Parker White
>Capitalism is killing the labour
Then I suggest a land value tax is a best solution to this.
