Is it possible to build another society or capitalism is the best humanity can have?
>>71114608
pure capitalism is the resolve to every problem
>>71114608
Socialism only works in tribal, isolated groups. As soon as there are multiple tribes, they will either wage war or dominate by economic means.
>>71114608
>my face when a friend tells me they support Bernie.
>>71114608
National Socialism senpai.
>>71116853
>Socialism only works in tribal, isolated group
Like North Korea
>>71114608
Isn't it more true to say that only the best possible society is possible? Because it outcompetes any alternative. Right now it's looking like western capitalism is losing out to stronger governements like Russia and China.
>>71116765
What even is 'pure capitalism'?
Socialists don't have enough children... only 1.3 on average.
>>71116765
Praise be to FREE MARKET, the fixer of all!
>>71114608
>>71116853
Socialism is about to work.
It requires a tech base that we didn't have back when socialism was originally proposed.
The funny thing about that is that socialist theory was based on a very specific timeline, where different stages of social structures are used at different points in time, including capitalism.
The socialist states tried to force that progression with government control, even though the system proposes that it needs to be founded upon a revolution by the people.
Anyway, socialism is unrealistic as long as good work is necessary for society to function. But once we reach a certain degree of automation, we can finally do socialism and it will, in fact, be the best way to distribute resources.
>>71118232
But socialists don't have enough children to keep their utopia running, why does socialists expect other peoples children to pay for them? Why are all socialists parasites?
>>71118148
>world population up 4 billion in 50 years
Yeah man, more children!
>>71118139
>Isn't it more true to say that only the best possible society is possible? Because it outcompetes any alternative. Right now it's looking like western capitalism is losing out to stronger governements like Russia and China.
Define best.
Just because you are able to curbstomp others, doesn't mean that you are happy.
It's like the age-old discussion on the best martial art. Set up an MMA fighter against a machete-wielding Philipino in the jungle and he'll have a really bad time.
Send that same Philipino into the ring at an MMA event and he'll be average at best.
>>71118304
Are you drunk?
>>71118232
Correct.
Modern IT and machine learning + planned economy = best communism
>>71114608
You are so fucking far behind the game you have no clue what is happening.
Please leave /pol
>>71114608
Capitalism is free exchange between individuals and groups. The only alternative to that are various ways to stomp on people's ways to exchange goods.
>>71118380
>Define best.
You first.
I didn't realize we were gonna discuss normative ethics or I would have stayed out.
>>71118232
>>71118400
I seriously hope you guys aren't thinking this sort of thing will happen/is possible in our life times.
>>71118400
I guess we could also stay with capitalism and run head-first into the "everyone is an artist" utopia, once everything important is automated.
But then you have a fully degenerate planet where the ones who thrive and reproduce are the "artsy" types. You know, the kind of person that is incapable of living properly.
After a dozen generations you'd have an unsurvivable species pampered by its AI overlords that strives for nothing except for base urges.
The people who can actually do shit will starve meanwhile because they have too much dignity to sing fifty thousand songs about their ex-girlfriend while married to someone.
IP laws are the purest of evil.
One a personal level I don't really give a shit as long as I am allowed to lead a fairly decent life have a family and be allowed to mind my own business in peace.
On a more philosophical level is has more to do with the amount of freedom enjoyed by the individual than with any given politiical ideology.
>>71114608
I don't think there's much difference between societies. There's just the difference of whether you're at the top or the bottom of the spectrum, and whether the society currently supports or opposes massive inequality. I think some systems are better at hiding pervasive inequality than others... Capitalism is very good at hiding human rights abuses and inequality, but if we in 'Murica didn't use the media as weapons as efficiently as we do and Russia did, maybe we'd have our appropriate reputation as a hell of human rights abuses. As it stands, nobody cares about human suffering or poor people in general. Here in 'Murica, even their mention is unpatriotic.
>>71118542
A pure capitalist society would provide basic services such as road, policing, safety etc required for civilization to exist.
It would however not coddle anyone or take their money to take care of others who can't or won't take care of themselves. Basically America in its glory days.
>>71118542
You implicitly defined "best" as "most competitive on a global scale".
I implicitly told you to stop pretending that your view is objectively correct.
Just call it the most competitive society, instead of the best.
>>71118546
Some people are a bit deluded in thinking that we are further along than we are.
But there are also people like you, who are deluded in thinking that we aren't as far along as we are.
Shit is going down in this decade.
Just compare 2000 to 2010 and 2010 to 2016.
>>71118504
>Capitalism is free exchange between individuals and groups.
Free exchange of what? You forget that private property is a convention.
So it's really only 'free' exchange if everyone already agrees about who gets to mine the gold or whatever...
>>71118603
Hahaha
>as long as I am allowed to lead a fairly decent life
Meanwhile in reality I am paying 80% taxes to fund the LOL WEED niggers and work refusers. Having retarded children is also a choice these days, why the fuck should I pay for other people's pets.
>>71118380
>Just because you are able to curbstomp others, doesn't mean that you are happy.
On the other hand, if you're being curbstomped, it's pretty much a guarantee that you're not happy.
>Set up an MMA fighter against a machete-wielding Philipino in the jungle and he'll have a really bad time.
>Send that same Philipino into the ring at an MMA event and he'll be average at best.
Societies have always competed directly against each other, so it is fair to say that the survivors are superior to the ones that have disappeared.
>>71118668
>maybe we'd have our appropriate reputation as a hell of human rights abuses.
I hope you are aware that many sane Germans are fucking furious at the entire NSA thing, your torture camps, the fact that you abducted German citizens from German soil to torture them and the fact that you kickstarted the refugee crisis with your actions in the Middle East during the past few decades.
They are also baffled at things like your homeless problem and the relationship between your citizens and your police force. (Which is mostly unrelated to "they shoot niggers too much")
The free market will fix everything.
so let neoliberalism destroy everything if you are rich...good point /pol/ very good!
Capitalism is not the best humanity has..we had feudalism..and after a great step we created capitalism..humanity will go on and capitalism sooner or later will crash by the people for the people to the people...admit you fasist-capitalist /pol/
>>71118693
>Basically America in its glory days.
What the fuck are you talking about?
So a 'pure capitalist' society would have tax-funded police enforcing arbitrary property laws, fucking nice!
>>71118715
Nothing can be objectively correct, because the whole concept is nonsense. That leaves us with other criteria such as efficiency for example. On top of that, it's not interesting to talk about things that are impossible, such as societies without competitive power, thus the OP wrote "Is it possible....".
>>71118729
>You forget that private property is a convention.
Opinion.
>So it's really only 'free' exchange if everyone already agrees about who gets to mine the gold or whatever...
Not at all. Absolutely fucking anyone who musters the effort can become a business owner, and the majority of businesses in America are small businesses, mostly ones with a single boss and worker, himself, like owner operators.
You want to be your own boss? Fine. But you take the risk and the burden yourself.
>>71118817
>On the other hand, if you're being curbstomped, it's pretty much a guarantee that you're not happy.
True in that regard.
>Societies have always competed directly against each other, so it is fair to say that the survivors are superior to the ones that have disappeared
The survivors aren't superior. They are fitter.
It's basically macro-evolution. The fittest survive, but they aren't necessarily the best.
Cheetahs are the best runners, but they could die out at any time because they require a very specific niche.
Cats and dogs are both naturally better killers and hunters than humans and reproduce much more effectively, but we are the fitter species and they are only so successful because we like them.
And that's why we need to define "the best". I would prefer to look at societies in a vacuum, maybe by assuming that all societies on the planet use the same structure or something.
Hell, would capitalism even work if all societies with access to important resources didn't do capitalism and thus saw no need in trading?
When Social Darvinism hits /pol/ hard
>>71119016
>On top of that, it's not interesting to talk about things that are impossible, such as societies without competitive power,
The thing is:
Right now they have no competitive power. Because resources and manpower are scarce.
But there should be a tipping point where the competitive disadvantage disappears. A capitalist society built upon IP laws (because everything else lost value) wouldn't be more competitive than a socialist society, for example.
>>71119168
The best societies create the best outcome for the citizens. In this case, surviving is always preferable to not surviving.
I guess this breaks down when there is only one government in the world, but I don't think that will happen any time soon.
>>71119323
>but I don't think that will happen any time soon.
True. And I hope it never happens.
EU is already bad enough. Imagine what it would be like if the ruling institution was even more powerful and had even more degrees of separation.
The best governments are the ones that act locally. Federalism with few powers at the top is the most sensible decision.
Socialism is great in small portions
All little groups have socialist values
But once it gets wider, it's impossible to make it work
We are too selfish for it
>>71119136
Yeah that must be why self-employment is going straight down, along with corporate tax rate... Because of how easy it is to be your own boss...
https://data.oecd.org/emp/self-employment-rate.htm
>>71119302
I never said capitalism would always win. I just mean that the first interesting criteria is whether a society is possible at all.
>>71119549
Do you have a point at all? Its NOT easy to be your own boss, that's the whole point of the last line of my post.
There are thousands of examples during the 20th century that people became their own bosses in industries. In Greece for example even now there is an industry called BIOME that is self-organised by the workers! If you WANT you CAN. If you are stacked in your filthy life eating consumin and doing nothing about the society in order to go one step further then sure you can't.
>>71119749
The point is that you believe capitalism has a correlation with individual freedom when really it has a negative correlation.
>Capitalism is free exchange between individuals and groups.
No, capitalism is subjugation under a large collective. That's the trend we can show.
>>71114608
socialism only works in small homogeneous societies, they live with a strong sense of community and thus help each other
technology may help implementing it, but as long as some people absolutely have to work (programmers, engineers, maintenance staff, etc) they will not take light to people they have nothing in common with taking their hard earned money
>>71120021
>There are thousands of examples during the 20th century that people became their own bosses in industries.
Yeah, and millions of examples where people didn't, and it's in DECLINE. Do you understand statistics at all?
Self-employment was once the norm, now it's 5 percent.
When i say that there are examples of self organising I mean that yes if you want you can do it...that this is not an utopie..of course it didnt happend to the majority of population cause we didn't have this kind of system..but capitalism.
>>71120053
>The point is that you believe capitalism has a correlation with individual freedom when really it has a negative correlation.
This is a point you have only now espoused (to me anyway) and you have yet to show your work.
>No, capitalism is subjugation under a large collective. That's the trend we can show.
If you believe that, then show it.
>>71120688
>show it
I already showed that self-employment is in decline since as far back as the data goes. Before industrialisation virtually everyone was self-employed.
There's simply no proof at all that capitalism leads to more autonomy.
>>71120688
Besides, how can you believe that private property isn't a human convention? Do you believe god wrote the law or something?
>>71121095
>I already showed that self-employment is in decline since as far back as the data goes.
And you jump from topic to topic like a flightly bird. In particular, you are trying to equate self employment to freedom and apparently the free exchange of goods to "subjugation under a large collective."
>There's simply no proof at all that capitalism leads to more autonomy.
How about the reverse, proof that governments outlawing capitalism results in a meteoric rise of the quality of living? No? Holy shit.
>>71121217
Even animals enduring scarcity conditions tend to try to aggressively protect what is theirs, food, territory, and so forth. Its the natural state of affairs, and I am skeptical that there's evidence to show that the iron fist of the almighty state smashing people's personal belongings causes an increase in freedom or happiness or what have you.
>>71121679
I think self-employment is a good marker for freedom. It's the one I'm offering, meanwhile you're giving squat to prove your point, flightly bird back at ya.
>How about the reverse, proof that governments outlawing capitalism results in a meteoric rise of the quality of living?
Outlawing capitalism? What does that even mean? And what does quality of living have to do with freedom anyway?
>Even animals enduring scarcity conditions tend to try to aggressively protect what is theirs, food, territory, and so forth. Its the natural state of affairs, and I am skeptical that there's evidence to show that the iron fist of the almighty state smashing people's personal belongings causes an increase in freedom or happiness or what have you.
Sure, power makes property.
Property rights, which we were discussing, just muddy the waters. You think that if the power is condensed in large private organisations often spanning over several nations, then that's okay just because we don't call them 'the state'.
I want controls on power, that means controls on property. Not because property is inherently bad, but because I want individuals to have a chance at it.
>>71116853
>Planet earth isnt a tribe.
>>71114608
Communism is probably the best humanity can achieve.
...probably about the same time we pull off robo waifus and Unicorn Burgers.
>>71114608
another commie greek
>>71122165
>I think self-employment is a good marker for freedom.
Certainly making and running a new business from the ground up isn't going to leave most people with much room for free time or a happy life.
>then that's okay just because we don't call them 'the state'.
You may be an anti-capitalist but I'm not even remotely the sort of ancap or libertarian you might think me to be. I just find you deranged for being anticapitalist and utterly naive and ignorant for thinking its nice or cozy to start your own business.
>>71122520
>Certainly making and running a new business from the ground up isn't going to leave most people with much room for free time or a happy life.
I completely agree, but it's a good marker for freedom.
> I just find you deranged for being anticapitalist and utterly naive and ignorant for thinking its nice or cozy to start your own business.
Nice strawman.
