Capitalism works

>capitalism is just the choice to engage or abstain from trading with others
"no"

Attached: Alain de Benoist.jpg (1280x832, 198K)

I will for $40.

It sure does.

Based.

Cringe

capitalism is people owning and exchanging their own time, energy, and property rather than the state taking people's shit and then expending/moving it

based

Consider the following. Money and power go hand and hand, because money enables the owner to control others. Power, of course, is dangerous in the hands of idiots. You don't want idiots to have an ounce of power.

Belle Delphine is taking power away from idiots. She's providing an immense service to society. Many 'services' and 'products' exist purely to remove power from idiots, and transfer that power to the responsible people that don't buy literal used bath water.

all power means in a non-coercive sense is that other people want what you have and are willing to do things for you in order to get those things they want from you
if I have a million dollars and want you to mow my lawn for 500,000, saying that "I have control over you" because you would happily take that exchange isn't saying anything morally significant at all - you're use the words "power" and "control" to be emotionally provocative, but it works out to being jack shit

capitalism is (((people))) opening a sweatshop in Asia so that you can pollute and don't have to pay White workers a decent wage and then also evading taxes once you're done.

capitalism is shilling for illegal immigrants so that you don't have to pay citizens a decent wage

capitalism is demanding the "right" to shut down White people using your platform if you don't like their speech while simultaneously taking Christian bakers to court for discriminating against faggots

capitalism is telling people to "just start their own business" while the corrupt government gives tax breaks and incentives to already established corporations

this is fun

youtube.com/watch?v=3NqG2lAojNQ

Attached: nike-factory-vietnam.jpg (450x290, 40K)

Instead of reading your post, I'm going to mock you for being a tripfag. You're like a whore with a tramp stamp at the beach.

why do you think people work in sweatshops
it's because that's the best option available to them - they choose to work there because working there pays more or makes them better off than other opportunities in their area

you can look at conditions in sweatshops and say to yourself "man that looks horrible I would never do that", but you're entirely detached from what THEIR options are
they live in POOR countries - their options are simply worse than yours, and they only improve over time when you have capital accumulation

>n..no you see sweatshops are a GOOD thing guise!
So THIS is your brain on lolbergism.

Attached: Suicide Nets.jpg (660x440, 98K)

It works but it has an end and we are approaching it with automation.

Attached: walmart-robot-01-kgo-jc-180327_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg (992x558, 114K)

why do you think people work in sweatshops, then
you obviously recognize that people do - why do they do so?

Furthermore, why the absolute FUCK should I care about the people of some Asian country? I don't care if sweatshops are literally the best thing possible for those people (spoiler: they fucking aren't), they're obviously horrible for the White workers who get laid off in order to make them and the White countries that now have to pay more welfare and collect less taxes from """"international corporations"""" who set up havens abroad.

>b...but muh cheaper products
Great, I bet all of those laid off employees now making $0 per hour can afford tons of things that are now 10% cheaper. We should outsource everything, just imagine if we could get prices for everything down to $0.01 per item, I bet all the jobless people making $0.00 per hour would be fucking loving it™.

Attached: Lolberg utopia.png (1348x1243, 317K)

why do you focus only on the first bullet-point (concerning sweatshops) I made?
why should I care about the well-being of foreign workers?
why do you think life was impossible before the existence of the sweatshop?

A hammer is a great way to make a baby stop crying. Doesn't mean it's the best option

Wtf I love capitalism now

do you believe the tractor should have been "banned", since it resulted in the largest shift in human occupation over the shortest period of any occurrence in human history?

we're better off today - why do you think that is, despite all the shifts in history that have resulted in entire industries being shrunk (in terms of human labor required to produce the same outputs) or eliminated entirely (video tapes, walkmen, film, etc etc etc)?

is it magic?

I'm not asking whether you care, I'm curious as to why you think sweatshops are even a point
you brought up sweatshops - why?
>why do you think life was impossible before the existence of the sweatshop
I don't

No

Attached: 53F30FE2-5ADB-4C94-89BC-82DAD59FCE02.gif (325x235, 1.59M)

Because the Chinese government nationalised all the land and is consolidating it into industrialised mega-farms so the former peasants have no choice but to move to the cities and work like slaves to survive? It was literally essential to the development of capitalism in every country to force the peasantry into the cities. No one wanted to move to those smelly, degenerate, death-traps.

This is why national socialism is all about getting people back to the land, that's mans natural habitat.

people move to cities because they have more opportunities for advancement in places where there's a lot of other people/activity/commerce

you don't need very many people working agriculture to produce high enough output to cover for the demand of everyone else, so when agricultural output goes up through advancements in technology/accumulation of capital, people are freed up to pursue other activities because food is being covered quite well by far fewer people (which is cearly a good thing, since otherwise you're spending more human time and energy to produce less)

And a lot more Jews.

What fucking opportunities for advancement does an illiterate sweat shop worker in China have? If they have such a wealth of "opportunity" then how come they're throwing themselves from the rooftops?

You don't need many people working in agriculture to feed everyone when you have industrialised farming and GMO's, this is true. But you do not understand the point I'm making. I'm saying people should be aiming for personal self-sufficiency so that massive global economies like we have now are not necessary because most of the things produced by such economies are pointless waste that we'd be better off without. We don't iPhones and pornography. We need food, water, quality rest and meaningful social relationships. And we don't need urbanised, industrial capitalism to acquire these things, we already had them before even the most primitive features of capitalism developed among humans. And with the technology and knowledge we have now we're much better equipped to protect ourselves from the things that made agricultural life difficult in feudal times like famine and disease,

>people are freed up to pursue other activities because food is being covered quite well by far fewer people
This is a total euphemism. People aren't "freed", they're deprived of their traditional livelihoods and forced to find other means to survive, which means moving to cities and working in sweatshops in primitive capitalist economies. It does not create a freer society, it creates an extremely confused and alienated clown world like the one we live in. And the most empowered in society are chiefly interested in industrialisation and information technology to control the plebs and harvest their labour.

the sweatshop is a better deal in their judgement than other employment opportunities where they live - that is why they chose to work there instead of making other choices

>This is a total euphemism. People aren't "freed"
if I need to do landscaping and I'm using a shovel, I am freed from tiresome shovel labor when I get motorized equipment that helps me do my work
nobody with a single iota of sanity who gives the issue more than a moment of thought thinks that spending more time/energy to accomplish the same fucking productive task is better than spending less and getting the same output

It does indeed work, but that doesn't mean it's ideal.
It's obviously loads better than feudalism, for instance. You could even argue that it may be better than communism, because communism is a stateless society which would just lead to chaos. But that doesn't mean that we can't improve on capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't exist anymore. Change my mind.

Attached: jews banks the world will pay.jpg (1052x834, 131K)

That's because there are no other employment opportunities for poorly educated peasants because the government wants them to work in those sweat shops so that they can industrialise and compete with the west (who did the same thing between the 17th century and the early 20th century).

>it's their choice bro
Jesus, libertarians are THIS thick. No, my man, economic relationships don't occur in a vacuum where people are offered a wide array of appealing choices and just so happen to "voluntarily" work in a sweat shop. Sweat shops are the reserve of labourers that have no other choice. Well there actually is another choice, suicide, and many of them choose that one rather than continue working in sweat shops.

>That's because there are no other employment opportunities for poorly educated peasants
yeah there are - they chose the sweatshop because those other opportunities were even worse options

you need to understand that wealth does not come out of thin air - it has to be produced
poorer nations do not have the capital accumulation of richer ones
we have tons and tons and tons of equipment that makes us MORE PRODUCTIVE with LESS INPUT that poorer countries simply do not have, and thus their time and energy produce less and thus they HAVE less

when you make 3 widgets an hour, that will net you MORE than if you can only make 1 widget an hour because you don't have the fucking equipment to make making widgets easier/faster

It's not the same result though. If you view it like a machine (this is why I describe out society as "alienated") in pure terms of input and output then yes, whatever gets the most plebs producing the most shit is clearly superior. But it's not the more appealing choice. Having your own self-sufficient source of food gives you an immense level of freedom that urban proletariat do not have as they're reliant on society for sustenance. In order to eat you have to work for others. If you can feed yourself you can spend all day long fucking your wife, raising your kids and occasionally contributing to the folk culture as peasants did before capitalism was entrenched.

If you truly love freedom then it should be a no brainer that it's better to be your own master than it is to be utterly dependent on urban life.

I ask you dear user, why the fuck do you want to support EA microtransactions? You gotta be one of those poor souls who upboated the shit EA said on Plebbit, so I would suggest you to fuck off from this shitty site quickly while you can.
See:

I realize you're trying to make a pseudo-economic sounding argument because you think that gives you a veneer of credibility but you're completely missing the point of my posts. Let me make it as simple as possible so that even a thick yank like you can understand.

FREEDOM>PRODUCTIVITY

We're already producing so much that it's an existential threat to our species, we should be aiming for more freedom for individual people than aiming for more crap on the shelves. This means reducing production, not maximising it.

>It's not the same result though
what I WANT it to landscape my yard
if I can do that with either a shovel or with BETTER equipment, I will use the BETTER equipment so I don't fucking waste my time and destroy my back
the result IS the same - the goal is to landscape my yard

I would far rather do what I like and trade it to others while they do what they like and trade to me, because that way I'm spared from shit I don't want to do and they're spared from shit they don't want to do and we're both better off

I'm not wasting my time and energy learning how to fix a modern car when I can do something else for an hour and just pay what I get from that hour to someone else to fucking do that for me

productivity RESULTS in more freedom ceteris paribus

I can spend 8 days landscaping my yard with a shovel, or I can spend 1-2 with better equipment
guess which one gives me more freedom

Hebrew translation
> Why care for my nation when I can get more money bags?
Fuck off conservatard

Here's my solution, don't get a modern car. Get something simpler like a bike that you could easily learn to fix yourself.

>but then how will drive to places that are far away
Fuck them, everything you could realistically need is never that far away.

lol i like how $15 / hr people working in the food court are always like "see capitalism works. hustlin"

yeah - I should also landscape my lawn with a toothbrush

Capitalism assumes that people act in their own self interest. To an extent, they do, except people frequently don't know what's in their own best self interest. For example, people can be alcoholics, drug addicts or just plain assholes and act counter intuitively. The premise that the market will fix most of these issues is true. It will. These people will eventually OD, rehabilitate or get fired from their job. However the market only fixes these problems with time. While time passes and people are learning more about why it's not a good idea to be a fucking self destructive nigger, this person's poor behavior is damaging other people collaterally. The ultimate problem is that markets are only as self fixing as they can be, namely, if something that is infinitely scarce is damaged during the fixing process, it's permanently lost. This includes lives, people, land, resources, even things as important as our planet as a unit. Protections MUST be in place for infinitely scarce commodities otherwise natural market fluctuation could lead to permanent damage to the ability to continue producing resources of that nature.

I used to think Capitalism worked when I was a vapid 20-year-old punk.

Now that I'm older, I believe that Capitalism only works when you have no immigration and a high IQ population. Capitalism combined with mass immigration is a road down to 3rd worldism.

No it doesn't, productivity results in the production of better tools for social control. You seem incapable of seeing the big picture and can only think of capitalism in terms of little atomised voluntary transactions when that is completely dumb. Economies are big things with far reaching implications and results. The societies we live in know where everybody is carrying around a wire and is completely brainwashed by the TV is the logical conclusion of capitalism.

should I landscape my lawn with a toothbrush, a shovel, or motorized equipment

Is the implication that a toothbrush is simpler to use for gardening than a shovel or a hoe? Because that's retarded. A bike on the other hand is so simple to use for travelling that even children can do it.

Is the implication that a bike is less efficient than a car? Because that's also retarded. A car requires expert help when something goes wrong and needs a constant supply of fuel. By having a car you're yoked to the wider economy while by having a bike you can pretty much take care of everything it could need yourself.

A shovel. Now what's the gotcha moment that this rhetorical question is leading up to?

> not owning country land

so I should labor more heavily at a task I hate when I could get it over with more quickly and instead spend my time doing things I like

and everyone else should do the same
and you believe that will make life better

>1 post by this id
i cant believe how you idiots ALWAYS take the bait. SAGE

>homes in the countryside don't have lawns
guess what word 'yard' is synonymous with

>Capitalism only works when you have no immigration and a high IQ population
then you're still a vapid 20-year-old punk.

Capitalism thrives by availability of low IQ monotonous workers who work for scraps, this is where the incentive for mass importation comes from.

This is what I mean when I say you do not see the wider picture. With a shovel you dig the earth and that's the end of it, it may take some time but that's all there is to it.

With motorised equipment you need to be able to pay for it (motorised farm equipment is expensive as fuck), you need to supply it with fuel, and if anything goes wrong you need an expert to look at it. Because of this you can't just dig and be done with it, you're yoked to the wider economy. You aren't just feeding yourself at this point, you're a commercial enterprise.

It's literally an objective fact that feudal peasants, even with their limited tools and knowledge of agriculture compared to what we have today, had more leisure time than we do. It's a complete myth that capitalism gives people more spare time. Given modern understanding of farming if everybody had a plot of land and a bit of know how we could easily be spending our days getting comfy.

I'd rather not

Just stop bumping these shill threads you stupid fucks. sage

Capitalism doesn't work if your population is ass-out retarded. In fact, no system works with such a population. The higher-IQ, higher-effort populations in the world can take just about any system and make it work. It's not about capitalism or socialism. It's about how sucky you and your people are.

I can pay for the equipment, and I want to pay for the equipment to save me the tedium of using a shovel
and so would anyone else, because that's sane

you want to take that option from me because you're a primitivist tyrant
go be a primitivist without the rest of us - abandon your computer and your plumbing and your home, because you can't even make pipes without assistance from other people

I don't want to take that option for you, I'm telling you the truth that by participating in this system you are making yourself less free.

And I'm not a primitivist either, I'm not arguing that we go back to the stone age. That would be pure utopianism. I'm arguing that we should aim for simpler, self-sufficient lives and smaller more sparsely populated communities. There's a reason why every time I talk about the freedom we could achieve with agricultural lives I stress the point "with modern advances in technology and knowledge". We have the society we live in, I just so happen to think we should be using the tools we have to aim for greater self-sufficiency rather than maximising productivity.

>the stone age
>utopia

my life is better when I do less of what I hate and more of what I love and have more rather than less ways to enjoy myself
a technologically advanced free market economy best achieves that, while living a squalid life of raw labor does not

1m USD = spare 1 jew
1k USD = too little for anything

That's easy. Pic related is America under capitalism. Does this "work" for you?

Attached: US white population change.png (982x1605, 617K)

I don't think you understand what "utopianism" means. A utopian ideology is not an ideology that would achieve a utopia, it's an ideology that aspires to a utopia but that aspiration is futile because there will never be a utopia. Man will always have want, it's just better that this is quenched by himself than he is dependent on others.

>my life is better when I do less of what I hate and more of what I love and have more rather than less ways to enjoy myself
a technologically advanced free market economy best achieves that
No it doesn't. A technologically advanced, free-market economy is a society where people are completely bombarded with advertising and disinformation to the point of brainwashing and worked increasingly hard to remain competitive against hordes of migrants.

On the other hand actual squalid medieval peasants had more leisure time than we do today
blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/29/why-a-medieval-peasant-got-more-vacation-time-than-you/
groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html
And all with cruder tools, more ignorance about agriculture and the added burden of also having to work their lords land and the church lands on top of working the land they used to feed themselves.

You can repeat "capitalism gives us the most freedom" until you're blue in the face, all you're doing is reinforcing the lie to yourself.

you said it would be "pure utopianism" to go back to the stone age

>A technologically advanced, free-market economy is a society where people are completely bombarded with advertising and disinformation
yeah, which is significantly better than when no one is competing to get you to trade with them, because typically to get your money people have to give you something you want in return
when you go to the grocery, you're trading money for food - you want the food, and they want your money, and the exchange is a win-win because both parties get what they want

>Capitalism works
The worker does

how interesting do you think the life of a medieval peasant was
put aside that they had less than half the life span of modern Americans for a moment and only consider whether their life was comfortable/fun/happy/interesting
seriously think about what their days consisted in

I said it would be pure utopianism to want to go back to the stone age and you still don't understand what "utopianism" means.
lexico.com/en/definition/utopianism
>The belief in or pursuit of a state in which everything is perfect, typically regarded as unrealistic or idealistic.

>the rest
At this point you've given up on arguing with me about the actual points I'm making and have gone back to parroting PragerU tier cartoon imaginings of capitalism. This is very obviously because you've been utterly defeated and you don't know what else to say.

>The belief in or pursuit of a state in which everything is perfect
>the stone age

it is not preferable when people aren't trying to compete for your time, resources, and energy
a healthy society is one in which people are trying to satisfy their own desires through satisfying the desires of others - that promotes mutually beneficial social interactions and good behavior among humans
you complaining about advertising when it's a direct example of that healthy mode of human interpersonal engagement is so fucking stupid

As I said earlier, fucking their wife, raising their kids and occasionally contributing to folk culture. This is what life is really about. They probably also had friends, practised their religion, ate food and shit in the woods. There were certainly bad things too, like disease and famine. But to quote myself earlier as you have the IQ of the gold-fish and still appear to believe I'm arguing we should literally go back in time to before capitalism existed

> And with the technology and knowledge we have now we're much better equipped to protect ourselves from the things that made agricultural life difficult in feudal times like famine and disease,

Now consider for a second how dull the average urban, first world proletariat really is. What's so interesting about the average life of a McDicks worker?

>Capitalism works.
The pundits at Teen Vogue think differently.

Attached: Annotation 2019-06-27 072858.jpg (1265x1205, 261K)

>regarded as unrealistic or idealistic

>you
>reading comprehension
Pick one.

>that promotes mutually beneficial social interactions and good behavior among humans
>you complaining about advertising when it's a direct example of that healthy mode of human interpersonal engagement is so fucking stupid
You're getting dangerously close to admitting what I've been accusing capitalism of this entire thread, that what it truly excels at is social control.

Is it possible for libertarians to talk about the system they love so much without it being heavily coded in euphemism and absurd cartoon examples? Don't think so!

what a wonderful life
truly admirable

why would we want art or literature or plumbing or access to any information about almost anything that we could possibly ever want when we can fuck a lot and die at 35
you have a lack of imagination and no appreciation for the things you have that people of earlier times could never even dream of

Google exists.

It doesn't allow you to post your opinion on the internet anymore.

The state needs to intervene.

is it "social control" when I think my landscaping company could make your yard look beautiful and I want to try to sell you our good work?
think about the work you do - do you not think the work you do is worth other people's time to consider supporting or purchasing? it's advertising when you try to draw attention to what you think people should pay attention to

You seem to have missed a bit my friend
>and occasionally contributing to folk culture
Why do you assume peasants had no art or literature in their lives? Who do you think made all that folklore that capitalists are constantly adapting into Holywood movies? Do you think musical instruments were only invented in the 19th century and before that nobody played them? Who do you think made the artefacts we look at in museums and think "This is the craftsmanship of our ancestors, this is an art"?

Not to mention, and I can't believe you are so thick I need to repeat this for the umpteenth time, I'm not a primitivist. I'm not arguing we should literally be medieval peasants. I'm citing medieval peasants as an example for how the life of a self-sufficient agricultural labourer is freer in many ways than the life of industrialised proletariat and that it's a total myth that capitalism has given us more leisure time.

>think about the work you do - do you not think the work you do is worth other people's time to consider supporting or purchasing? it's advertising when you try to draw attention to what you think people should pay attention to
No I want other people to fuck off and leave me alone with my crops.

nobody knows hardly anything about the lives of peasants because they were too poor/busy to become literate or get paper or spend any time writing at all - their "contributions to culture" are almost nil and their whole lives were utterly transient
what a fucking joke of a claim - the elites were the only people who passed down ANYTHING, which is tragic but utterly true

we don't talk of the lives of Athenian slaves because the perspectives we have are from people like fucking Plato

My oh my, you are very ignorant about history.
Read the sources I linked earlier about the economic lives of peasants if you're interested, they themselves also include citations if you'd like to know more about how they came to these conclusions.

> their "contributions to culture" are almost nil and their whole lives were utterly transient
You realize why "folklore" is called that right? It's the stories that were orally transmitted down through generations of peasantry before being later written down in the forms we know today by people like the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Anderson. Even the Sagas are an example of mythology recorded as it had survived in oral tradition among the peasants. People had bodies of mythology and knowledge even before writing was invented because oral transmission is actually a surprisingly powerful (if fallible) tool for the preservation of stories and knowledge. We're even have preserved examples of the music medieval peasants would have played and there's still modern folk musicians who play it, for example

youtube.com/watch?v=AqJMVSnwg_Y

>the elites were the only people who passed down ANYTHING, which is tragic but utterly true
I hope you realize that the medieval aristocracy were also largely illiterate and it was only really the clergy that were active in making written records. Writings from the medieval era that were actually written by noblemen are almost as few and far between as writings from peasants

it works in a sense that it does what it is supposed to to

but socially it is cancerouis. capitalism is why the gay shit is so bad right now. it is the cause of all of this immigration as well as why none of the powers that be are doing shit about it.

i know the meme "socialism has killed x,xxx,xxx people", but has socialism ever exterminated a whole race? that is what capitalism is doing to whites.

there needs to be a morality beyond whatever makes the most money, and that morality needs to be enforced by the state.