Capitalism is evil by definition

Capitalism is a system of slavery where some people use money to control the majority other people converting them into defacto property while using propaganda to deny this is happening. It can’t exist in the absence of states because markets don’t survive in the absence of regulation. Its been dead for 50 years because labor has been dead due to automation for that long but its corpse is still oppressing.

Security by private insurance companies only providing it for people who can afford it and investing the money in gross externality generators like fossil fuels and with no way to dissuade such stupid behavior?

Sounds like our present money first business first corporatist system. Yep, allowing people with idiot savant like islands of intelligence to calculate everyone else into hand cuffs.

If were going to bash communism at least acknowledge its first aim was always to eliminate the state and then eliminate money, markets and contracts

How did capitalist systems of money slavery ever come to be associated with real freedom?
With the checks of democratic socialism they were improved but never ever remotely good enough.

2 Likes

Sounds like your definition. Let me tell you mine. Capitalism is an economic and political system in which means of production and consumer goods are controlled by private owners.

I am not surprised its bad from your perspective since you define it as a slavery… Now, please tell me more what you think slavery is.

In a history, state-non-regulated markets existed on a huge areas for a pretty long time (e.g. Wild West) - don’t you think those are examples your quoted statement is wrong?

Not necessary, in an ancient Ireland (some people consider it anarchy) poor people still had a justice while rich people paid for security of others in a neighborhood. Nobody could just make systematic harm to poor people without a thread of justice.

I have the feeling communists want everything you wrote and then - establish a new state. But please tell me where I am wrong.

Following statements are some of the pillars which ANCAPs believe - please tell me where is a conflict between freedom and capitalism in those statements:

  • Everybody is an owner of his own body.
  • Everybody is an owner of things which he homesteaded, built, bought or get for free from a legitimate owner.
  • Nobody shall violate anybody else’s ownership - nor state.
3 Likes

You can look at Takis Fotopolous analysis of the historical fiction of non regulated markets and the impossability- there has to be an outside organizing mechanism- no permaculture markets.

As for protection what you’re describing is mafia and tribalism and a system of might makes right.

As for ownership again no way to cover the commons or externalities. Tragedy of the commons is just justification of theft.

You’ll have a system where wages reduce and debt goes up so that people are owned through the theft of their time and throughly enclosed and kept ignorant. Its mass murder through fully extracted time and extracted human energy, in short slavery- a fate in many ways worse than genocide. And a fate most new children would be born into- capitalism is animal husbandry applied to humans with the idiot cult of ‘leadership’ layered on top.

1 Like

Capitalism works fine unless you are using FIAT Currency. FIAT Currency is manipulated by the central banks and government.

***EDIT :Banks and governments seem to get overtaken by greedy capitalists when the only value they bring is pushing papers to “make value”.

2 Likes

Nobody forces you to work for a particular wage. You accept it in a mutual agreement of terms. I think you will have a hard time crafting any convincing argument when you are trying to equate voluntary work with slavery. It is a slap in the face to those who actually are suffering through actual slavery.

People are selfish, there is no getting around that. The libertarian mindset is to work with that innate selfishness and craft it into a positive society. The reason Communism has and will always fail is because it relies on people not being selfish. You can rally people into that sense of selflessness for a while, but after the drudgery of every day life sets in, people begin to get antsy. You can see this even in Europe with their socialist policies. Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, in particular, went farther to the left than most countries. Their desire for more benefits drove them all to the brink of insolvency. The pillars of European society, Germany, Switzerland, Luxembourg, etc. are all highly capitalistic. “But what about the Scandinavian states, they are socialist?” Actually no, they aren’t. In fact, the leadership of Finland called out Bernie Sanders and told him to stop calling them socialist. Also, those Scandinavian states have a massive advantage most other countries don’t, a lot of natural resources, and a very low population. Take a look at Alaska. They are in a similar situation, and they essentially have a UBI.

2 Likes

That also is a delusion. Go look up the real history of metal money. Money is just an extension if tax, its glue. You can see its historical development in Jared Diamonds work.
And all the flop houses and new poor laws worked great huh?

Yeah a right side fool tried to correct Sanders but he was wrong and in a foolish minority that took his country backwards like Thatcher did the UK. No question involvement with EU damaged both. But look at the EUs Universal Declaration of human right. Also Germany is a full socialism and its democracy not capitalism that stands out for Switzerland- it came very close on a recent referendum to making work fully optional- there has been sufficient automation for 50 years to do it and it extends freedom to all citizens and then all world citizens.

But you misunderstand me. I am hard left in my thinking I would rather see human extinction than continuing to allow some people to lord it over others using money or artificial scarcity. And for those individuals engaged in this lording over I think lethal injection or multiple life sentences an appropriate response. This world is presently run by people who would rather die than take orders. I am sympathetic to that! But they take it one step further and seek to enslave everyone else to eliminate the possibility of their having to take orders (especially from those they consider lesser.) Can’t agree with that. No orders but no enslavement either.

If you think Germany and Switzerland are socialist countries, then there is no point debating with you. You are clearly misinformed and stuck in your own ideological haze. Also, your blatant disregard for human life by advocating the killing of people for being successful is rather frightening. It sounds like you and Robespierre would have been good buddies if you lived in the late 18th century. You may want to look into what happened to him.

1 Like

So it was changed from it’s original intentions and became a vehicle of control.

I am apparently a lot better informed than you.
And its not a disregard but a celebration of humanity that informs my respect for human freedom.

I think it grew out of prior systems in an organic way. The tweaks appear more intentional.
The appologists for convention have tried to paint it as intentional, moral and right. Marx held the view that he was only speculating on the evolution of capitalism which he considered a necessary stage.

I think Adam Smith’s invisible hand is excellent for producing products and services. But I agree that we humans are still treated as products or “batteries” within the capitalist system. Humans are even called “human resources” today.

This has been necessary because even though the industrial revolution resulted in machines being able to do a lot of heavy lifting for humanity, it still required people to work for the system. Fortunately we are now at the brink of the next revolution: Artificial intelligence, robotics and other forms of automation.

As Ray Kurzweil has explained with his Law of Accelerating Returns, technology builds on itself resulting in an exponential progress. It took tens of thousands of years before agriculture was invented, and then it took thousands of years to reach the industrial revolution, and then hundreds of years to reach the computer age. This is a clear indication of the exponential progress Kurzweil has described.

Not only does technology and knowledge accelerate exponentially, so does price-performance. The first mobile phones were clunky, with poor performance and so expensive that only the power elite could afford to use them. Today even many people in developing countries have mobile phones, far superior to the first models. And this improvement of price performance is inherent in the progress of technology.

So what we are moving into is automation being able to do more and more jobs that previously required human “resources”, both blue and white collar jobs. This will be challenging at first because society today depends on people having jobs. To make the transition easier a universal basic income can be used, but should only be a temporary solution during a transition phase as I see it. A transition into a society saturated by automation that makes the use of and need for money unnecessary.

2 Likes

Yes!!! and 20 characters

There is a fundamental difference between a UBI and going to a moneyless society. Money was created to simplify bartering. Inevitably, money will always come back to simplify transactions because bartering is cumbersome and doesn’t make sense in a large scale society.

One could say we wouldn’t need money because we could get whatever we want from the robots/AI. Not true. There are still limited resources so not every one can have every thing. It also assumes no one would ever want to exchange things with each other, which I think is a pretty foolish assumption. People will still be creating things, even with AI. There will still be a market for human crafted products. Art, music, furniture, things of “beauty”.

Things can never be equal. Who gets the penthouse apartment in the tallest building in NYC? That can’t be fairly divvied up despite millions, maybe even billions of people desiring it. We need some way to value personal resources. There also has to be something people strive for. Some paradise society where AI controls and supplies everything and humans just sit back and do nothing sounds good, but boredom begets other issues. Humans need to be doing something. I think it is wishful thinking to assume that AI can and will solve all our problems. It will just bring a new set of them.

We also don’t need society based around casinos and rent seeking. Can cast lots for a penthouse.
But what you’re advocating for is accepting some level of fraud, coruption and injustice to be not only tollerated but recognized as necessary. You’re arguing for privelige which is the grossest insult.

I don’t see what is wrong with casinos. They can be enjoyed responsibly. It is basically just like any other time wasting activity. Just because some people are irresponsible does not mean we should outlaw something.

You seem highly fixated on rent seeking behavior. This is really inevitable in any human interaction. At some point, someone will acquire something that other people want. They will then use that to gain some advantage over others whether by creating wealth, or other favors. This is human nature.

I’m not accepting anything. I’m simply acknowledging that it is inevitable. To try to stamp that out is a futile effort, and can only lead to authoritarian rule. I assume you are wanting to create some kind of autocratic society ruled by a benevolent AI. I am much more in favor of a libertarian/classical liberal society. You are trying to propose something antithetical to human nature, it cannot work. The only path that leads to is the ultimate downfall of society, ala “1984” or “the Giver”.

Is it capitalism that’s evil or the few people who are corrupting the system and the many who follow along blindly letting them few be evil?

I don’t think capitalism is inherently evil. Capitalism feeds into human nature and drive.

Any system, and all systems can and will be corrupted by someone at some point. Thus limiting the power of a central authority as much as possible should be the ultimate goal. Some people take that to mean an AnCap society, some an anarcho-communist state, or some slightly less anarchistic version of that. I fall closer to the AnCap side, but more classical-liberal. I think a communist state is an idealist dream. I do not think it is ever achievable because it requires ultimate selflessness for the entire population of humanity. Not only that, anything that strives for equality of outcome should be strongly avoided and is actually the inherently evil system as it requires forcible removal of property of some to give to others.

That experirment has been run, it was Mercatile England and Mercatile Sweden and the results were if you can imagine it worse than the WWII concentration camps. Can’t spin opposition to glutinous excess for a few and resultant injustice or opposition to enclosure and artificial scarcity as authoritarian.

If Iceland selects Hatari this Saturday you know how to vote on Eurovision this year :wink:

Hatari declares war on capitalism (subtitles)

Edit: Hatari is going to Tel Aviv.

1 Like