Communists trying to build the new society or something like that. Fascism tried to kill all of Jews, if I am not mistaken. What is capitalism and liberalism end goal?
Destruction of all identity that isn't bought and paid for.
>>1284917
They let each individual decide their end goal.
>Fascism tried to kill off all Jews
But they did not
>>1284976
Another holocaust denier? Did you mistaken this board for some other one by a chance?
>Fascism tried to kill all of Jews
That's a pretty poor summation of Fascism senpai.
The end goal of Fascism could maybe be described as a strong, self-sufficient nation with a healthy respect for tradition and free of 'degeneracy' (obviously what exactly that is is up to interpretation)
The goal of Communism is to abolish class and money and market economies, having everyone on an equal social footing and goods produced for use rather than exchange.
>>1284978
Why shouldn't revionism be allowed on a history board?
And not all Fascists were Nazi Germany?
>>1284917
>tries to kill all Jews
>grants many Jews honarary Aryan status
No end goal on capitalism, it just targets economic growth.
liberalism is a form of capitalism that tries to get away with as much humanitarianism as possible, usually resulting in a reduced velocity of currency.
>>1284917
Profit.
>>1284917
True communists are trying to resolve the inherent contradictions of capitalism. Meme communists want free stuff for everyone. Meme communism exists because it's easier to get people to sign onto meme communism, and it's easier to prove that meme communism is a really fucking stupid idea.
The end goal of capitalism is your picture. It only works so long as competition drives the economy and serves as a effective equilibrating mechanism to optimize growth. Competition fails when it leads the participants to subvert and undermine their own society. Capitalism also fails when things lead to the erosion of productive optimizing competition. The growth of capitalism requires very specific market conditions, where businesses thrive without being able to wield coercive forces which would let them get away with sub optimal production, with fair competition to prevent collusion which again lets them get away with sub optimal production, and competition that focuses on optimization of production and not undermining the production capability of others.
Incidentally, capital accumulation often causes all of that. Having access to large excesses of capital means you can manipulate a market to be anti-competitive. It creates an upper-class to more easily form oligopolies or implicit ones using access to capital as a barrier, and it denies or cripples the production capability of other potential workers who can provide the labor, but lack the capital to make use of their labor.
Generally the most palatable solution to this is an extremely high inheritance tax, without obvious loopholes, for the rich, letting the finite lifespan of an individual serve as a cap to capital accumulation.
>>1284917
the west is liberal and libertarian, which means that they strive to make hedonism the most legal and moral, but the east so far has too few means to feed their desires. It changes slowly since the east becomes decent enough while still being affordable for the middle class who just think of pleasures all day long.
The east is the pataya of europe.
>>1285034
>an extremely high inheritance tax, without obvious loopholes
Why has this not been done then?
>>1284917
Commodification of everything.
>>1285054
Because people don't want to work and toil just ro piss it all out to someone they don't even know.
>>1285034
>true communism
>meme communism
>implying that true communism isn't a meme in itself.
>>1285054
Because people don't want to work hard their entire lives, pay the government a bunch of taxes in life, then get most of their shit taken away once they are dead and they planned to leave it to their children.
>>1285034
Communism in general is a stupid idea.
The end goal of any capitalist should be a monopoly of all resources and infinite profits/wealth which would funnily enough make it stop being capitalism. Just because it's incredibly unlikely to ever happen doesn't mean that's not the goal.
Capitalism is lassaiz faire economics. It's not a mandated theology but actually a description of what happens if you don't regulate markets. Therefore it has no goal.
>>1285034
>inheritance tax
Unironically thinking these should exist is one of the most sound retard detectors on the internet. It is by far one of the most shit ways to tax people, and closing all loopholes requires so much bullshit that you'd hurt the economy.
Already there are tons of bullshit laws, for instance certain tax brackets mean you have to pay over a 60% income tax when trading securities. That's pretty fucking stupid, so many people start corporations and do other types of evasions so they can actually put money on the fucking stock market.
Liberals doing retarded shit like private security taxes and inheritance taxes are basically theft against retards and they highlight the embarrassing state of "left" economics.
>>1285095
That's a funny way of spelling "best idea ever".
>>1285107
It just needs one more try
>>1285114
Needs more than that.
We're probably in like act 2 of 2000. But ultimately communism is the logical conclusion to the present conditions of society, even if we aren't ready for it just yet.
>>1285104
This.
>>1285118
>But ultimately communism is the logical conclusion to the present conditions of society, even if we aren't ready for it just yet.
What, did you just learn about Marx in your 10th grade history class?
>>1285122
No.
>>1285118
I have about as many reasons to believe you as anyone else and their ideology
>>1285118
>logical conclusion to the present conditions of society
>even if we aren't ready for it just yet
you tried
>>1285034
Sweden has no inheritance tax.
A land value tax would be much better ( in a capitalist society of course ).
>>1285142
And it didn't work out. Just like republicanism didn't work out for a long time.
Maybe in like a thousand years the world will be ready for communism. Provided we aren't extinct.
Communism could work. If people were replaced with robots with no desire or ambition.
>>1285097
He said of capitalism, not of capitalists.
A lot of them do have profit as their end goal, but it's open to the Individual to decide their end goal.
>>1285102
>Capitalism is only pure laissez faire
>>1285143
So we should forcefullt create a country of medocres?
>>1285148
You can just give everyone LSD or something to be artificially happy and content. This would be the future and we close to that with every step anyway.
>>1285158
It's obvious that we live in a capitalist society, yet government provides some services and there are regulations (some good some bad). That is not laissez-faire. But it is capitalism.
>>1285169
Laissez faire capitalism is true capitalism whilst what we have now is a social democratic system. Compared to 18/19th century economies even America is social democratic.
>>1285179
Social democratic societies use capitalism.
Capitalism != Anarchocapitalism (which is the worst idea possible ).
>>1285187
No. I would say they are the same. When capitalism was defined it was deceiving economic systems as they existed in that time which by today's standards we would call lassaiz faire.
cap·i·tal·ism
ˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun
noun:capitalism
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
synonyms:free enterprise,private enterprise,the free market;
.
Just because the Americans call the left 'liberals' doesn't mean they are.
1. Capitalism must continue to expand markets to the absolute maximum extent possible.
i.e. North Korea must be crushed and liberalized, Africa must have more gift shops and sweatshops. If that's all done we should start building 50s diners on the fucking moon if at all possible.
2. It also seeks to transform everything into a commodity that can be bought and sold on a market. All social relations must be also transformed into commodity exchanges if possible.
Rothbard thought babies should have a market place to logically make the disturbingly communist like institution parenthood more properly capitalist, for example. You might notice free market fundamentalist types are always trying to push for an organ market. Also needless to say absolutely no free parking or toll free roads of course.
secret option 3. further the hierarchical power of the current winners/elites.
After all, the more things are for sale the more having money maters. The more inequality there is the more the have nots will desperately do in services to get a bit of droppings from the haves. Like those organ markets, right now if you're a billionaire you have to go through an altruistic blind waiting list like a peasant if you ruin your kidneys from your illuminati bacchanals. But if you could pay some super poor family to give up one of theirs from one of their 14 house members you'd be golden. We don't have for real gladiator rings anymore, but if people got desperate enough.... maybe. That'd be cool.
>Fascism tried to kill all of Jews
>/his/ - History & Humanities
>>1285311
Everyone here is retarded now. I don't know if it's a /pol/ invasion or not but this board really has taken nose dive these past few months.
>Inb4 it was always shit.
>>1285004
>liberalism is a form of capitalism that tries to get away with as much humanitarianism as possible
You've got that backwards - liberalism is capitalism that tries to get away with a minimum of humanitarian measures.
The problem is - in a post-socialist world - our standards are very high - so the leaders of our countries have to make a huge number of concessions - gay marriage, feminism etc.
>>1285114
It would be helpful if someone tried a method other than "Violent revolution followed by a dictatorship to maintain it."
Capitalist, Communist, Fascist. That never ends well. The problem is with revolutions.
[Centrally planned state socialism is also useless outside of wartime, but that's another story.]
>>1285597
>Centrally planned state socialism is also useless outside of wartime, but that's another story.
Not really relevant as Socialist states will, by definition, always be locked in a state of total war with the capitalist countries which seek to destroy them.
>>1285610
Dubious.
Also, this approach would see most of such states either abandon some central planning in some civil affairs [rational] just as capitalist states take it up in many military affairs, or see the society fall as inefficiencies stack up and the population want their consumer goods.
One must wonder how the USSR would've gone had they invested more in computing, however, given the computer's power as a consumer entertainment device.
>>1285623
But that is basically proved by the history of socialism.
The attempt to create a communist society is absolute anathema to the capitalist class who control our governments - they will do absolutely anything to destroy it.
See Vietnam, America waged an unpopular, massively expensive, borderline genocidal war for over 10 years - just to ensure the failure of a minor socialist state half the world away.
>>1285647
It would've helped if that state wasn't trying to unify itself with their puppet state.
Nobody would've cared for Vietnam if the North and South stayed seperate.
>>1285104
Cry more faggot. The purpose is to keep money circulating.
>>1285657
>keep money circulation by hindering more than one generation planning
Smart
>>1285655
Come on - the capitalist world has tryed - and is trying to destroy every single socialist state that has ever been.
Even independent states that aren't explicitly socialist - but have socialist tendencies and the future potential for it i.e Syria are targeted for destruction.
>>1285669
There's 1945-51 Britain
>>1285662
>more than one generational planning
Corporate funds aren't going away because the CEO or a shareholder dies. It's ridiculous to think that.
More than one generational planning just means I deserve to be rich because I was born in a rich family, to which I reply stop asking for a handout and get off your ass.
>>1285672
A state with socialist tendencies isn't a socialist state.
Also, the anti-socialist doctrine which is standard foreign policy now was still embryonic then - and the world was recovering from WW2
>>1285054
Because of stupid hypocritical pricks
>Wow you should fucking pick yourself up by your bootstraps you lazy piece of shit
>Me? I inherited 90% of my $multi-million wealth from my parents who inherited theirs
>And fuck you for trying to level the playing-field by making my children have to go through the same hoops you do to get anywhere
>>1285681
To say they were attacked for being socialist misses the nuance that they were attacked largely for the risk they were perceived to pose in tandem with the USSR.
If cold-war politics between the USA and USSR weren't a factor, few people would care.
>>1285689
>If cold-war politics between the USA and USSR weren't a factor
Which existed why? Because the USSR was a socialist state.
The "risk they were perceived to pose" was that they might actually prove that a socialist country could be successful - hence 40 years of total warfare against said countries.
The capitalists were fighting for their lives - and their right to exploit the masses.
>>1285711
>Because the USSR was a socialist state.
Because the USSR after WW2 was strong and posed a threat to US hegemony.
>The "risk they were perceived to pose" was that they might actually prove that a socialist country could be successful
The risk they were perceived to pose was that they might actually launch military invasions to spread their ideology by force.
>>1285716
>Because the USSR after WW2 was strong and posed a threat to US hegemony.
These ideas aren't mutually exclusive.
Besides, I've provided other examples of non-soviet socialist states that the US has tried to destroy.
>The risk they were perceived to pose was that they might actually launch military invasions to spread their ideology by force.
And quite clearly, the "ideology" bit is the part that the Americans were fighting. You think the most destructive, warmongering country of the 20th century gives a shit if a country invades another one?
>>1285726
>Besides, I've provided other examples of non-soviet socialist states that the US has tried to destroy.
Syria, that country with a curiously large amount of Soviet military hardware?
>You think the most destructive, warmongering country of the 20th century gives a shit if a country invades another one?
If it's one they have hegemony over? Fuck yeah.
>>1284917
Capitalism isn't an ideology, libertarians and ancaps didn't invent it, Adam Smith was describing something that already existed.
>>1285729
>Syria, that country with a curiously large amount of Soviet military hardware?
lmao, what does that have to do with anything?
You think the US is waging an ideological war against hardware?!
>If it's one they have hegemony over? Fuck yeah.
Again, the idea of the US waging an ideological war - and protecting it's own hegemony aren't mutually exclusive - they serve the same purpose.
The point is - if one capitalist country invades another one - that doesn't affect US hegemony. If a socialist state invades a capitalist one - it does.
>>1285733
>libertarians and ancaps didn't invent it,
they co-opted it, though
liberalism, as in the actual, eurpoean word - communism/anarchism.
capitalism isn't even sustainable in the long run, so i don't really see it as an actual ideology. it's basically just an excuse to fuck poor people over and play the victim card when the proles get mad an guilliotine you.
>>1284917
To put a fuckin dollar sign on everything.
>>1285680
>I deserve to be rich because I was born in a rich family
Let me guess, you don't deserve your genetics either? Cultural marxism, not even once.
>>1286196
Social Darwinist go
>>1286196
He doesn't inherently deserve them, there's just nothing that can be done to distribute good genetics to already living people.
>>1286196
Righties always say "equal opportunity" not "equal results" when bringing up the notions that this image expresses. Feel free to reject the straman, but it seems to me to be a pretty ubiquitous sentiment.
Shit aint even close to that though. Just because we don't have as many social pitfalls for the poor as say, the gilded age, doesn't mean all are born equal in the states. I find it to be a ridiculous cop out. And I find it to be a ridiculous notion that they are willing to support their country but not their countrymen. Do we not realize that our country is just that? We are not born equal, though we were promised we would be.
>>1286221
>He doesn't deserve his genetics
Holy shit. Maximum disdain for your disgusting opinion. Please reconsider the structure of your brain.
>>1286222
Personally I wish they'd drop that rhetoric entirely. Equal opportunity would be fundamentally impossible without some sort of communal child rearing society.
Social liberalism is picking up the pieces of the failed Marxist ideology and applying some of its valid points as democratic reforms.
Certain socialists hope that they can reach their utopia eventually without a revolution because they still haven't realized that marxism is a theoretical fuckup together with a practical one.
>>1286222
Of course you're not born equal, that's a ludicrous idea. Imagine if everyone was raised in the exact same way and looked the exact same and had all the same success in life. Society will never ever be like that (thank God) it,s entirely unrealistic.
>>1286232
Whether someone deserves something or not is a matter of human value judgement, there's nothing inherent (external to human perception) to it. So the claim of whether someone "deserves" something or not is truly just an arbitrary claim.
Also, that was an amazing show. By omitting a single word, you created an excellent strawman of my position.
>>1286232
Who the fuck made you arbiter on who deserves what? You seem to be implying what you get is what you deserve. Apply that to a katrillion news stories just today and you look like a smug douchebag. Pretty sure those faggots didn't deserve it in Orlando.
>>1286242
I interpreted your post as; You don't think a person inherently deserves his genetics. And that's why i become filled with disdain, are you saying you meant something else?
>>1286244
>you get what you deserve
Obviously not, in that case there would be complete justice in the world. And there isn't.
>>1286249
Indeed, there's nothing inherent about what they deserve. What someone "deserves" is just a social convention built on sand. I also didn't say they don't deserve their genetics, as that would be just as arbitrary a claim.
>>1286234
Exactly. They've existed with small parent groups in the past in a lot of occasions, so we know that they work. But at least, in the states, we're very self directed. And I don't think people are comfortable making sacrifices for communalism when they know their neighbor is out doing crazy shit.
It's unfortunate. Nobody wants to be the sucker and fall short of what they could. Though communalism and mutualism still do exist in things like baby showers, and gift giving. Maybe showing through doing, in our own lives, can make a small difference.
Anyways, an interesting thing I heard on the radio the other day: A nation-wide trust program that redistributes wealth by assuring all children have a statistically tiered trust based on tax info.
It was curious to me, but I worry it might cause too much savings to accrue, or that it may not be dynamic enough to account for families falling into poverty or skyrocketing into wealth. After all, if little jimmy gets 3k more than bob, who is upper middle class, but jimmy's boozer dad has an eureka moment that has him running an ultra-successful brewery: Is that fair? Can we take a margin back from Jimmy because his pool of available support has drastically increased?
>>1286256
Ah, the cultural marxist statement that everything is a "social construct" and therefore doesn't matter or have any practical applications. So now you've picked a word, proclaimed it a "social convention" , and thus rendered it inert. I've come across this type of arguing before... It's useless, and irrational.
>>1286241
Which is of course the goal of many social programs, to bridge this gap. But again, it's rhetoric and a strawman of mine. I just wish there were my politicians were more intellectually honest, on both sides of the spectrum.
>>1286267
Deserve is a subjective value judgement and has no no need to be in this thread.
>>1286278
I could say the same thing about your opinion.
>>1286196
>he won't inherit millions of dollars in assets
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
>>1286267
>cultural marxist
You're an idiot.
I didn't say social conventions are without utility, you are again costructing a strawman of my position, as to be expected from the sort of person who considers cultural marxism to be a thing (this line of reasoning is more in line with post-structuralism, get your terms right). Social conventions are very useful; the notions of rule of law and property rights allow our society to function, and both are just social conventions. But the thing about social conventions is that you're attempting to create something out of nothing; there is nothing firm upon which to build ideas, and any starting point can be just as valid or used to attack any other starting point.
So saying someone inherently deserves something does little to defend your position when the fact is there's nothing inherent about it.
>>1286279
And you'd be right. My only opinion expressed in this thread is that deserve is a spook. How the fuck would we figure who deserves what? It's obscene in its stupidity. But continue spewing cultural marxism and throw in a Frankfort Jew school
>>1284978
Italian fascists weren't really genociding anyone senpai (if you don't count Africans)
>>1286305
>if you don't count Africans
Weak bait
>>1285104
>retard detector
Great non-argument
CEOs and executives are overpaid, compare USA to Japan. Capital investors are overpaid for hedging investments compared to a hedge fund investor, simply because one has capital and the other is responsible for figuring out what to invest in. Rich people donate shit tons of money when they die anyways. The biggest corporations are publicly traded companies. People get rich because they want to be richer. People get so rich they literally can not hope to spend all their money except on Veblen goods, you know they're not operating on normal market principles anymore. If anything, a tax just means they have to work harder to ensure a big nest egg for their children, and they have to make sure their children are competent enough to manage that nest egg instead of being retarded inheritors.
>muh tax is theft
Now that's a retard detector.
>>1286241
If I could wave a magic wand and create that society I would do it in a heartbeat.
>>1285148
we're getting there
communism will win because of automation
>>1284988
"free of degeneracy" found the red piller!
>>1285054
Because politicians come from rich aristocratic dynasties that rely on a perpetual cycle of inheritance redistribution.
>>1286267
> everything is a "social construct" and therefore doesn't matter
Marxists never say that because social constructs matters and that is why they try to change them all the time, anon.
>>1284978
They literally did not kill off all the jews, they tried to but they failed, which I am very happy about because I love playing with my Jewish boyfreind's ass :)
>>1285682
Let's say we do introduce an inheritance tax, what would stop rich folks from giving their own children enormous sums of money in monetary forms or not?
And if we would really want to give everyone an equal starting, wouldn't that basically require us to destroy the family unit?
>>1284917
Quarterly gains, obviously.
>>1284917
To produce in the stratified feudal societies the conditions necessary for global communism by...
1. globalized education/communication/socialization,
2. capture and stabilization of all markets worldwide,
3. the creation of an abundant and ubiquitous surplus of all available products/goods/services.
Then to perish, its fuel exhausted, its purpose fulfilled, its successor forged in the act of creative self destruction.
>>1284960
They let each of the most powerful individuals decide everyone else's end goal.*
>>1285148
capitalism couldst w'rk if 't be true the divine right of kings wast false and peasants w'ren't just a bunch of ign'rant children, but alas, we knoweth divine right of kings doest w'rk and whenev'r peasants tryeth to ruleth themselves those gents just endeth up fucking ev'rything up, just behold at 1381!
I don't understand why people think Socialism will be some big kumbahya hippie love in where everyone is sharing everything.
it's a shift in economic system that will change social relations, but there is nothing about Socialism that means the people will actively have to be hugging their neighbour.
A proper Socialist system would be designed that it would be basically impossible within the system itself to accumluate wealth and capital. Ideology will most likely be geared towards sustainability (especially with climate change) over growth and commodification.
Just like until, jesus fucking WW1 people had no problem throwing their lives away for kings and barons and aristocrats and people in capitalism have no problem throwing their lives away for nation states and bosses, in Socialism most people won't think of things outside socialism because it's all they know and all they experience.
The idea that Socialism relies on love and hugs is absurd. It's an economic and social theory based on the sociological and economic observation, not some new age hippy listening to deep forest while on intravenous DMT.
Change the way the economic system works and how people interact with it, you'll likely see social changes occur too.
There isn't actually anything wrong with capitalism.
If you try to start a business in China I can almost guarantee that you are the one who will get screwed over. Hire a foreman and while you are away he will assume authority, fire another employee and replace him with his nephew under your nose, promote his friends and form a little clique that you can't challenge without damaging the whole business, other employees will leave early enmass or throw excessive material away as "waste" then come back later to collect it so they can flog it. You can't simply fire them because it will take days to find a replacement and they know that, they accurately judge their "leverage" and push you as far as they can. All this and they don't even have any effective unions to speak of.
Who is exploiting who here? Owners of capital have to rely entirely on the good nature of everyone they employ to stick to agreements, work diligently and ensure their business is a success, they would be powerless to stop them confiscating all their property if that is what the mob wanted. Even the most talented entrepreneurs have failures under their belt and had to press on for years to have any success. They are true übermensch, yet we punish these people.
Why? If anything we should be subsidizing capital gains, but I don't think we need to go that far.
>>1285737
>lmao, what does that have to do with anything?
You can hardly sell Syria as a poor little socialist country with nothing to do with the USSR when the USSR provided half their army.
>they serve the same purpose.
Not really. You can out-capitalist the USA in theory [or at least fuck with them Saudi 1973 style.], but you can't destroy their overall hegemony.
