Everythingg
King-Over-Kingz
You projecting right now goofy
Three posts in and all you have brought to the table is your emotions.
Capitalism really is just a ruse to make a handful of people wealthy. The average person is never going to make it.
- Thread starter Ozymandeas
- Start date
Three posts in and all you have brought to the table is your emotions.
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
Most of Europe and Asia were destroyed and depopulated after world war 2, Africa was still largely colonized, the US owned 90% of the market share. Of course people could live comfortably back then because there were no competitors in the market for US goods and services. Now you are competing with everyone in the globe and the goal of capitalism is to produce the most expensive product for the cheapest cost. So why would a company source labor from an expensive market when they can outsource labor for cheap or hell even better bring that labor here so you don’t have to worry about the logistics of moving your operation to where the cheap labor is.
Of course those who accrue the most resources are going to eliminate potential competitors and alter the system to benefit them. If someone can exploit a system to their benefit so easily that’s a failure of the system. MF talking about NBA2K sliders and shyt.
No you dummy you going against people who built the game and made the rules.Gotdamn Karl Marx pointed this out 150 years ago and y’all still don’t understand the game
But you’ll ignore this while never naming what economic system is better
I described the system necessary to you in detail already and you ignored it.
If you want a name, it falls within Libertarian Socialism. But the name is irrelevant, because their are VAST differences between systems with the same name, so without specifying actual policies the shyt is pointless. The made-up definition of capitalism you're trying to use doesn't bear the slightest relation to modern capitalism, yet you're in here propping up the system like a good right-winger solely by using that bait-and-switch.
The naive aspect of these posts is that you CAN'T have capitalism without the people at the top "rigging it". That's part of the very nature of capitalism. "Capitalism for everyone" is a logical contradiction, it can't last for any length of time. What you're really talking about is free-market (or libertarian) socialism.
Our current system is called "Capitalism" because the power is in the hands of the people with capital. The richer you are, the more power you have. Not just economic power, but because the whole system is capitalist, you have political power, legal power, educational power, health power, social power, everything. The fact that the system is capitalist inherently ensures that those with capital will be the powerful ones.
Now, what kind of people will those be? Of course random variance and luck play a part, but as a whole, the people with the greatest power in capitalism are those who were most ruthless, most willing to toss aside all other considerations in order to focus on profit alone. If you think fairness was more important than profit, you've lost capitalism power. If you think honesty is more important than profit, you've lost capitalism power. If you think not killing kids, not destroying the environment, not fukking over poor people, is more important than profit, you've lost capitalism power.
As a result, the people on the top of the capitalist system are by and large the ones who will do the MOST to advance their own power, and the LEAST to give a shyt about anyone else. Therefore, once they get the power, they WILL rig the system, because that is who they are.
The only checks on the rich a$$holes rigging the system are also going to be checks on capitalism. If you bow to capitalism, then you by default bow to being controlled by rich a$$holes who don't give a fukk about you.
Last edited:
This is the Kennan Memo from 1948. George Kennan is sometimes known as the "architect of the Cold War". He was the 1st Director of Policy Planning in the Truman Administration, and his proposals largely became US policy that shaped the next 40 years. Here he lays out the rational behind US foreign policy.
"Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction....
In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.
We should recognize that our influence in the Far Eastern area in the coming period is going to be primarily military and economic. We should make a careful study to see what parts of the Pacific and Far Eastern world are absolutely vital to our security, and we should concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas remain in hands which we can control or rely on. It is my own guess, on the basis of such study as we have given the problem so far, that Japan and the Philippines will be found to be the corner-stones of such a Pacific security system and if we can contrive to retain effective control over these areas there can be no serious threat to our security from the East within our time."
en.wikisource.org
washingtonsocialist.mdcdsa.org
This is the primary truth of American Capitalism. Like Kennan says, it's not about human rights, or raising living standards, or democratization. It's primarily about using economic, political, and military power in order to maintain wealth disparities. The very designers of the system know that, and so they engage in intense "anti-communism" and "pro-capitalism" propaganda in order to distract you from what is really happening in life (pure 1984 tactics). Every single one of us has been enveloped in that system of propaganda since childhood, even if you weren't raised in the USA. The only question is who has been able to see it for what it is, and who is still caught in the web.
"Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction....
In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.
We should recognize that our influence in the Far Eastern area in the coming period is going to be primarily military and economic. We should make a careful study to see what parts of the Pacific and Far Eastern world are absolutely vital to our security, and we should concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas remain in hands which we can control or rely on. It is my own guess, on the basis of such study as we have given the problem so far, that Japan and the Philippines will be found to be the corner-stones of such a Pacific security system and if we can contrive to retain effective control over these areas there can be no serious threat to our security from the East within our time."
Memo PPS23 by George Kennan - Wikisource, the free online library
. . . to maintain this position of disparity�
Now, 70 years after George Kennan saw the US foreign policy goal as maintaining its wealth-and-power advantage over the rest of the world, we can see that the ruling class still controls foreign relations doctrine.
washingtonsocialist.mdcdsa.org
This is the primary truth of American Capitalism. Like Kennan says, it's not about human rights, or raising living standards, or democratization. It's primarily about using economic, political, and military power in order to maintain wealth disparities. The very designers of the system know that, and so they engage in intense "anti-communism" and "pro-capitalism" propaganda in order to distract you from what is really happening in life (pure 1984 tactics). Every single one of us has been enveloped in that system of propaganda since childhood, even if you weren't raised in the USA. The only question is who has been able to see it for what it is, and who is still caught in the web.
Everythingg
King-Over-Kingz
Most of Europe and Asia were destroyed and depopulated after world war 2, Africa was still largely colonized, the US owned 90% of the market share. Of course people could live comfortably back then because there were no competitors in the market for US goods and services. Now you are competing with everyone in the globe and the goal of capitalism is to produce the most expensive product for the cheapest cost. So why would a company source labor from an expensive market when they can outsource labor for cheap or hell even better bring that labor here so you don’t have to worry about the logistics of moving your operation to where the cheap labor is.
Of course those who accrue the most resources are going to eliminate potential competitors and alter the system to benefit them. If someone can exploit a system to their benefit so easily that’s a failure of the system. MF talking about NBA2K sliders and shyt.
Again, capitalism is as simple as a person stepping outside his home, growing crops on his land, and taking it to the market to sell. It’s as simple as a carpenter stepping outside his home, cutting down a tree, using the wood to make furniture, and taking it to the market to sell. It’s as simple as someone stepping outside their home, raising cattle and taking the cattle to the market to sell. And in one case someone may come to the market, see the sheep and by the wool off the sheep so they can use the wool for clothing. They take the wool home, make clothing out of it, then take it back to the market to sell.
This is the SIMPLEST way to describe capitalism in regards to its definitions. And there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with it. And cacs didn’t make those rules up either. So how about you tell me what’s wrong with this way of living?
Karl Marx? The one who came up with Marxism?Gotdamn Karl Marx pointed this out 150 years ago and y’all still don’t understand the game
Everythingg
King-Over-Kingz
Got ‘em. Now in socialism who exactly controls distribution?
Made up?
I had an acquaintance a couple years back who opened up his plumbing business with no loans. 4 years later he’s pulling in 6 figures with a 4-6 man crew under him.That’s capitalism. Capitalism is as simple as one being able to make profit off their property (physical or intellectual). And in the same system he does this in, there are people getting by receiving money from the govt because they have children with no man in the picture. That’s an example of socialism. So while you’re just spewing your bullshyt socialist take that will never work, we’re not even in a pure capitalistic society
Also low levels like you can only think in right and left,one or the other type of ways. No room for nuance while those at the top, both right and left KNOW that there’s a private entity above the country that controls the money supply. A money supply that is backed by absolutely NOTHING, that they can print as they wish then loan to the whole country at interest. They can’t be audited and they’re not voted in or out. That is the problem with this economic system and #bothsides will not say or do anything about it. People like you aren’t about black people, you’re about a political party and anyone NOT for your political party becomes the enemy. Pathetic
Last edited:
That’s not what hip hop tells me 
Everythingg
King-Over-Kingz
Nope. Money becoming power only happens when you allow lobbyists to pay for politicians campaigns. And when the country itself defines itself as a CORPORATION. (And it’s defined as that in the law books). When that happens then everyone working for the corporation called the United States will be expected work in the best interest of the corporation over the best interest of the people.
Your take on what’s actually going on is all surface level with no depth to it. You can only think in terms of black and white, right vs left. No nuance and more importantly no depth. And by the way with socialism you need “people at the top” for distribution. Makes it easy to rig, while reducing innovation and creativity since there isn’t as much incentive for it. It’s a terrible system that can only exist in doses and not as the foundation…
Wait, so you don't even know what libertarian socialism is, and you're trying to lecture us on socialism? It's hilarious that you're accusing everyone else of lacking nuance, but the moment you saw the word "socialism" you just jumped to assumptions despite knowing nothing about it.
Libertarian socialism isn't about someone at the top controlling distribution (at least, no moreso than in any other system and far less than in most). That's why it's "libertarian", dumbass. The difference is that the incentives are different. For example, if you institute a negative interest rate, then money naturally distributes, rather than the existing system where money naturally hoards.
Ignorant bullshyt.
a. Lobbyists can easily use their power to gain influence regardless of how political campaigns are funded. Look at Clarence Thomas. He doesn't have any political campaigns to run now or ever, yet lobbyists are all over him 24/7. Lobbyists can wine and dine politicians at any point, they can offer them jobs after they leave office, they can use their money to get access any number of ways that have nothing to do with specific political donations. Even the mere fact that the rich can use their money to get into political social circles easier than the poor can gives them outsized power.
b. People with money can get themselves and their children a significantly better education than people without money have. That education results both in direct power (the power of an Ivy League degree) and indirect power (the social connections gained in the Ivy League). Thus, money became power.
c. People with money can get themselves significantly better legal representation than people without money. That's power too.
d. People with money can get themselves significantly better health care than people without money. That's power too.
e. People with money can use it for extensive advertizing and influence over public opinion via media. That's power too.
f. People with money have control over their employees and customers in a way that people with money do not. That's power too.
This is simply incredible. You keep repeating the most low-thought takes based almost entirely on the words "capitalism" and "socialism", with no concern for the reality, then accuse everyone else of lacking depth.
The claim "capitalism increases innovation and creativity" is nonsense.
The vast majority of innovation has nothing to do with profit motive. 99% of scientific discovery is made by people who will never make any money off of a "product" that comes from their discovery. And the vast majority of people who profit off of new innovations didn't have anything to do with making the innovation themselves, more often than not they just stole the idea from someone else or used their resource advantage to overtake the first ones to come up with the idea.
And the more that "creativity" is commercialized, the worse that creativity gets. The idea that you need profit motive to be creative is fukking nonsense - much of the greatest writing, the greatest music, the greatest art, was made by people who cared little for capitalism.
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
This has nothing to do with what I said. I was referring to specifically the reason why US families were able to thrive off one income and that was because the US owned an overwhelming majority stake in the world market share. Europe was essentially a thrall to the US and everywhere else was undeveloped and had no industry. Now US workers are competing with billions of other workers.
Again, capitalism is as simple as a person stepping outside his home, growing crops on his land, and taking it to the market to sell. It’s as simple as a carpenter stepping outside his home, cutting down a tree, using the wood to make furniture, and taking it to the market to sell. It’s as simple as someone stepping outside their home, raising cattle and taking the cattle to the market to sell. And in one case someone may come to the market, see the sheep and by the wool off the sheep so they can use the wool for clothing. They take the wool home, make clothing out of it, then take it back to the market to sell.
Also, the state has defined corporations and cooperatives as private entities. Literally corporations are seen as people before the law. So fukk whatever else nonsense you are saying.
So who made up the rules dumbass? Is there a God of capitalism? Is this to go along with the other dumb shyt you believe like slavery was fake and Boston was a settled society with modern buildings 1,000 years agoThis is the SIMPLEST way to describe capitalism in regards to its definitions. And there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with it. And cacs didn’t make those rules up either. So how about you tell me what’s wrong with this way of living?
Yes. The most scathingly accurate prophetic deconstruction of capitalism ever put to paper.Karl Marx? The one who came up with Marxism?
Let's remember, this is who we're dealing with. In every other thread he's a hotep conspiracy theorist who believes in a Flat Earth being controlled by secret reptilians, but suddenly someone insults capitalism and he code switches to PragerU / Cato Institute college white boy speak:
@Everythingg is a mush-brained hotep troll in EVERY thread.....until capitalism comes about and then all of the sudden he's a loyal Young Republican.
You have not provided ONE piece of physical evidence for the earth being round. Just insults and cac explanations. JFK flat earth map:
UN Flat earth map:
to @thekingsmen for schooling these brehs.. Dont worry. When shyt hits the fans most of these mockers wont know what to do. So they'll do whatever daddy (thats their gov't) tells them to. So like sheep, they'll be led to slaughter. We'll see the jokes they'll be telling and the smilies they'll be posting then...
The reptilian shyt is absolutely real too..
I hate that they act as if there werent black people in Europe who guided cacs over here to enslave the black people here
In other words, I hate the black slave narrative as it is mostly filled with lies/half truths
There were black people on EVERY continent before anyone else was there. Yet you ONLY want them to take Africa while the other races, who came later (and arent even fully human according to their own scientists)get to take every other continent?
@Everythingg is a mush-brained hotep troll in EVERY thread.....until capitalism comes about and then all of the sudden he's a loyal Young Republican.
FactsYes and no...Alot of people born into wealth and got so much generational wealth they couldnt lose it all in a lifetime. but there are people who get it out the mud because they have discipline and are hungry to change their lives...
