Are there any right-wing critiques of capitalism?

Have you ever read Mein Kampf?

Capitalism leads to globalism you goddamned retard

it's too regulated

Spoken like a true eurocuckold

>too regulated
Nigga, it's still the only reason those at the top haven't acquired all the wealth yet. If you have no regulations those with all the money already will take all the money you have left.

I'm just another fag shitposting, so no i havn't read it. why would anyone read such a bullshit thats on the same level as gender studies and "social science"

If there were no regulations, wouldn’t the people with the most hired guns get to set the rules?

Capitalism requires competition to be effective. As with any competition, in time, there will be a winner. That winner will monopolize a part of the market and will have be broken up to maintain the efficacy of capitalism.

>intrinsically created and cultivated by the fundamental structure of the system
No, but the fundamentals of human nature. The "greedy kikes" are just a catalyser. You have the greedy kikes, the intellectual and artsy kikes and in totalitarian systems you have the perverted torturer and mass murderer kikes (think of Trotsky). It's not that the kikes really invent it, they just thrive and flourish under these conditions.

Come back when you guys critisize the interested based fiat money system. Then we can forget about kikes. As long as you don't say a word about that and the only policies are to create more debt for nations via (((welfare))) and therefore enslave those countries even more, we will mention kikes.

Yes, and it is quite good. Not awesome in every aspect, but good.

Rene Guenon, Julius Evola from a metaphysical level

>Come back when you guys critisize the interested based fiat money system.
Are you implying that communists don't criticize "money systems"? What an incorrect position to hold.

a communist country treats its citizens as cogs in a greater machine rather than an actual person.

LOLbertarians are really good at criticizing the problems of the current system, but terrible at proposing solutions. The left is 100% worthless shit now.

its too fair and im a lazy faggot, so Capitalism is not really in my favor.

No man that’s never happened.

Yes.
We are just not allowed a voice by your filthy kind you dumb kike.

Criticizing a flawed system from the perspective of THE MOST flawed system seems redundant.

only good if you consider facebook ramblings "good"

That's not really a "right-wing" critique of the system.
In fact, it's essentially a summary of Post-Marxist analysis.

What are you trying to say? (beside "I hate Jews")

and capitalism's market forces do not?

Why not be a capitalist?
That was you can live an extravagant lifestyle off profits and dividends, without working a single day in your life!
Just be born rich.

Real comunism means no market.
See, the free market bows to the collective will/needs of the people.
You kill it?
The collective needs of the people are not met.
That means starvation, as you jews found out during Lenin's reign ( yes, look into it, the soviet rebellion was helped by Wall Street, not being anti-semite, but being thruthfull here ).

Can you provide examples?

I know time travel can't real because nobody killed that fuck yet.

Economics should be distinguished from politics because you can be a right wing socialist just as you can be a left wing socialist. There's nothing meaningfully right wing about capitalism and it's only modern day liberals/libertarians who try to conflate the two. That aside, any valid criticism from the left will also apply from the right, although most of the criticisms I've seen apply perfectly and are sometimes made worse under socialism, like with greed and corruption or environmental abuse. Or they'll blame blame capitalism for the rise of materialism and consumerism as if those same attitudes wouldn't exist if socialism were capable or creating the wealth that capitalism is.

I support capitalism despite any of the failings because the price coordinated distribution of scarce resources is the most efficient, and in comparison to any socialism or centralized distribution of resources doesn't even come close. When resources are distributed inefficiently people starve and I don't want that. Now theoretically maybe somebody can develop a computer which can know precisely what, when, and where things are needed and this could tip the balance in favor of centralized distribution, making it more efficient and in that case I would become a right win socialist overnight.

Capitalism is inherently jewish, as is communism. It never works, it's purely materialistic, rewarding men for teaming up with (((international))) capital to put their own blood, their own neighbors, out of business and take that share of the market.

literally uironically actually this

Attached: nasim-likes-this.jpg (411x467, 44K)

Capitalism is simply a communist word to describe any economical system that isnt communism.

>muuhh communism is jewish

Attached: 700.jpg (208x326, 10K)

Capitalism is fine.
The Jews in charge are the problem.
Replace the Jews with Whites and everything is fixed.

How about market socialism?

If you mean a system of distribution where the planners are using money or price to dictate where resources should go at any given time, then I would say it definitely more efficient than plain old socialism but it's essentially a less efficient or hampered capitalism. There are narrow areas where this could be good or useful, like with "socialized" healthcare but we have to be aware that there is a significant cost to it even if it's not readily apparent. I don't support socialized medicine because I think that inefficiency comes in form of less quality healthcare and innovation in exchange for more access to healthcare. To me the tradeoff isn't worth it.

>coin
iswydt

Attached: 1553747279921.png (530x687, 173K)

Attached: 1.png (1381x331, 138K)

Attached: 2.png (1372x209, 98K)

Attached: 3.png (1380x347, 168K)

Attached: 4.png (1385x285, 136K)

Attached: 5.png (1366x337, 121K)

>a system of distribution where the planners are using money or price to dictate where resources
That's state capitalism. It's the sort of system wartime economies have, including the Soviet Union for a long part of its history. Also Hungary beginning the in 1970's
I was specifically referring to something like the Yugoslavia system.

>innovation
You seem reasonable enough. How about reading a cool essay?
thebaffler.com/outbursts/the-innovators-agenda-leary

(You seem to be a bit obsessed with "efficiency". Perhaps you should ease off the capitalist kool-aid, before you go off thinking consumer preference is an adequate reflection of human needs)

civil nationalism itself

Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy seems to be a good one: he suspended his disbelief on Marx and he concluded that capitalism would be destroyed by capitalists themselves and that liberal democracies would end as social democratic, oligopolistic ones.

>sees flag
Makes sense

>Or is it possible avaricious tendencies are intrinsically created and cultivated by the fundamental structure of the system?
yes. All the ism's are a jew con. The economy is not the basis of a society. When any deeper affiliation or motivation is removed from the structure of society (God, race, heritage) then you're left with humanity reduced to the level of rats. It doesn't matter which ism you choose, the end result is always the same. The only reason there are multiple ism's is because if there were only one then it would be more difficult to instigate wars between nations

>Yes. When the Govt. Becomes the CEO essentially. (Aka Fascism, example China today) this is the Radical Lefts version of Capitalism.
no it isn't. The chinks can own property. The left wants to eliminate that ability

>Nigga, it's still the only reason those at the top haven't acquired all the wealth yet.

No the reason is that if they acquire all of it then it will have no value. Money gains it's value in circulation so the kikes have to keep it circulating and there have to be examples of people becoming wealthy in order to keep the illusion alive.

>The left wants to eliminate that ability
why?

because they want a world full of slaves

FPBP

I've never seen or read a leftist who wants "a world of slaves".
In fact, leftists tend to be abolitionists.

Karl "The Kike" Marx....There's that homeless smell again.

Attached: scat08.jpg (365x364, 39K)

it wouldn't be the best pr for a political group to openly declare their desire to make slaves of their followers. Leftists aren't "abolitionists", they are intersectional progressives. They divide humanity into as many warring factions as they possibly can because their goal is the destruction of the Western world

>intersectional
what does this word mean?

>progressives
what does this word mean?

>their goal is the destruction of the Western world
How would dividing "humanity into as many warring factions as they possibly can" help them achieve this goal? Why would a divided humanity bring about the destruction of "the Western world"?

Also, I thought making a "world of slaves" was their goal. So which is it?

that's really fucking sad

Because a house divided cannot stand
If you turn the people against each other
(blacks against whites, cops are bad, white males are evil, cisgenders are insufferable)
inevitably a revolution sounds logical and hey since capitalism didnt work lets try socialism again.
Have you never heard of cultural marxism?

distributism

"Cultural Marxism" is vague to the point of meaningless, and doesn't make any sense with even a rudimentary understanding of what Marxism is.

>Kikeposting

The Frankfurt school has a good understanding of it.
Most college professors do as well.
I understand it.
My post explained to you what it entails.
Nothing complex about it at all really.

Not a true free market. Only a few can be rich. If limited only few can acquire the great wealth. Communism essentially would work in the same manner. I don’t care if there is a socialistic take over of the United States because it’s already taken place. Government needs to fuck off and stop fucking around with everyone.

>only Jews are greedy
Ok so I agree Jews are greedy but saying that all the problems attached to greed would disappear in a jewless society is a retarded statement.

Your post had absolutely nothing to do with Marxism.

I never said it did.

Probably not considering capitalism is inherently fascist unless highly regulated.

btw, how is calling for a motherfucking race war, a de-emancipation of women and the marginalization of all non-straight non-cis people not "turning people against each other"?

"capitalism" isn't an all encompassing system like socialism. You may as well call it individualism

You're supposedly talking about "cultural marxism", which is a meaningless propaganda word that doesn't even worth discussing. But, ASSUMING that it is a real thing, your description of it has absolutely no resemblance to Marxism. In what way, then, is "cultural marxism" Marxist at all?

It does divide.
Its fighting back.

This. Rootless, cosmopolitan Jews control global markets and banks. They have no national loyalty and hoard their money in offshore bank accounts. For these kikes, a nation is but a host to be exploited and drained of all resources before moving to the next one.

What does an "all encompassing system" mean? In what way does socialism ("worker control of the means of production") fit that bill that capitalism ("private ownership of the means of production") does not?

Do you pride yourself on having high IQ?

It’s simple biological programing, we need resources to survive, and it seems like we do not have a cap. Some of us are better on the matter of acumulating resources some are way worse, it seems to be correlated to iq and the environment.

All of my critiques have to do with the banking systems and government policy surrounding economic interference. Things like subsidies and preferential tax rates destroy the concept of a free market. That's how you get the shitty mega corporations who stamp out the smaller businesses while seemingly providing shittier service. The lack of tariffs to protect domestic businesses is also scummy. Central banks controlling the interest rates and debt based economics with fractional reserve banking causing inflation. People like to bitch about muh capitalists not increasing wages. The reality is that's the governments fault for pursuing economic policy that has caused constant inflation resulting in wages losing value over time. But commies blame the businesses for their failure to increase wages in line with inflation. Misplaced anger really, also because they worship the state and couldn't imagine a government doing crappy things like that and not caring about people.

Capitalism worked at one point. The market economic is also responsible for people earning more than 500 dollars per year. Reminder that planned economies/traditional economies have been standard for more of human history and they don't work.

correct

Cultural Marxism is essentially the application of the Marxist idea of the eternal struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie onto various identities (often fictitious ones), this leads to an incohesive society filled with internal strife.

So it is not actually a critique of capitalism, is it?
You right-libertarians type always lack the systemic vision. You see all these real or imagined flaws in the neoliberal political economy but never once stop to question where did they come from? WHY do governments give out subsidies and preferential tax treatment?

(I also don't get how can you be against "subsidies and preferential tax rates" and in two sentences deride the LACK of "tariffs to protect domestic businesses". How is one form of economic protectionism different from the other?)

Why can't businesses be blamed for not increasing wages? Why is the government to blame for those very same businesses raising prices (inflation)?

Got you an anti-marxist redpill right here

Attached: 1542906645737.png (1001x756, 1.49M)

Did anyone mention Ferdinand Lassalle?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Lassalle

Laid the basis for Bismarck's reforms but was nationalist and thought the state was essential.

>the Marxist idea of the eternal struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie
The "Marxist idea" only sees the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as a temporary artifact of the current (capitalist) mode of production. It is not eternal. In fact, the entire historical dialectic of class struggle has only emerged sometime alongside agriculture, and is expected to end with an entirely classless society far far in the future.

Attached: marx.jpg (621x397, 36K)

For Aristotle, democracy meant a citizens' assembly in an agrarian city-state where over half the population are slaves.

for a "red pill" this is very watered-down
it's not even an argument. It's just an assertion, made in the name of a 2,500 year old philosopher.

>Lassalle is best remembered as the initiator of national-style socialism in Germany.

I find the idea of 'national-style socialism' to be quite interesting. Are there any other people that advocate for this type of thing?
A form of socialism that doesn't advocate destroying culture and race if you will.

Because the governments are scum? The people who lobby governments are scum. These are virtues of lobbying and democracy.

Are subsidies and preferential tax rates a form of protectionism? It fucks with the domestic market and competition within it. Tariffs only fuck with the markets of other countries, who often don't even follow the same labor standards and may even be subsidized by their governments, further giving them an edge over domestic business. Opening the housing market to foreign buyers is also scummy. You're increasing demand beyond what the status quo can deal with, all at the expense of the citizens. That's why the costs of housing is high.

You can blame them, but what does it do? They built their business around benefiting from lower labour costs from the inflation. They increased their prices, while the wages stayed the same and they balanced their operating budgets around that. There is no excess wealth being hoarded. That's why employees get the axe when they increase min wage. Is it not better to just avoid this situation so you can avoid doing things like mandating wage increases, and breaking up companies and shit? All bandaides.

I'm also not a libertarian. I despise democracy and most everything libertarianism stands for socially. My views of economics are simply in line with what was standard in the past, between the industrial revolution/creation of the market economy, and the establishment of central banks and removal of gold standard/balls deep dive into fractional reserve banking.

The geometrical elegance of that chart is funny in light of the literal contradictions it represents.

it's just some pic I found by googling "historical materialism"
but I am curious. what contradictions are you may be referring to?

>The "Marxist idea" only sees the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as a temporary artifact of the current (capitalist) mode of production.

Same goes for the cultural Marxists, they think that this struggle will end once a the entire world has been homogenousied and made into a single entity where race and identity no longer matter and all nation states have been eroded.
It is not eternal.

"The best system for people is the one that makes them murder anyone who doesn't agree with their masters ideologically and uses its people as useless pawns"
Yawn...

Yes, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera.
I don't have this pic in better resolution in english.

Attached: when-we-talk-about-capitalism-and-everyone-knows-this-we-21224228.png (500x300, 43K)