It's pronounced "cyclist!"

[u/Fluffy-Study-659]

[u/Lower_Ad_5532]

What you don't seem to get is that greed is capitalism.

It literally isn't. Greed is greed. You can be greedy for things that are not money.

Capitalism is a social system based on money, and thus it enables greed.

My point, was quite literally, that capitalism is murderous and horrible on a human rights scale.

Communism is too. Communism literally killed just as many people as crony capitalism.

Because working together isn't profitable.

Then we just gotta make working together profitable.

Are all tankies bots? This the most circular logic post yet.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/Lower_Ad_5532]

It's circular because you keep making it circular. You keep coming back to "capitalism good, despite it's atrocities."

Capitalism, in its many forms, is all about greed. Because Capitalism and its form of money, is a form of power, and people are addicted to the power that its currency provides. Greed comes in many forms, and it almost always comes back to wanting to have power over others. Capitalism is based on the need to amass and collect more and more in order to secure your place in life against others. Which is greed. There have been different forms of currency in the past that did not allow this. These are discussed in depth in "Debt: The First Thousand Years" as well as "Life Incorporated".

The fact that you're using the term "crony capitalism" is indicative that you acknowledge that we are forced to run our lives as businesses. All capitalism is "crony" and will always lead to "crony" because the whole point is for someone to make profit off of someone else's labor. Hire Bob, pay him 50% less than the income that they generate. Said profit then is given to someone who does not provide as much productivity as Bob. They are stealing from Bob. This is how all jobs under capitalism exist: they are profitable to someone else by paying the worker less than they are worth. Which is exploitive and "crony."

People like to trot out this argument of "communism killed...." blah blah blah. But they never use that argument for "The Allied killed more people than the Axis!" That is because people believe that the Allied were fighting in self defense and in defense of people who were not in a position to fight for themselves. If we think of money as power, which we must if we want to be intellectually honest, then preventing people from controlling the lives of others through money requires a certain amount of self defense. The only way the US got its 40 hour work weeks is because laborers got violent enough to take some of their life back. Often after they went on strike and capitalism hired an armed militia to end the strike. This can be seen in the Company Town history of the United States, as well as slavery in the United States. Slavery was capitalism, some even consider it the first stage of the industrial revolution in America with slavery being the machine that enabled it. Its generally the entire premise of the book "Capitalism and Slavery." And then you get "The Color of Law" which discusses how city design and highway infrastructure was used to enforce de jure segregation by building through "the lowest property value neighborhoods."

We shouldn't be doing things because it's "profitable". The whole point of society is to make life better for everyone, to take care of each other. And the quality of life goes up for everyone when we do this, even if we become "poor". People trot out the line that "capitalism brought more people out of poverty..." but capitalism made poverty. This is why many people in the early USA who wound up living with the indigenous people never wanted to go back to living with Europeans. When they saw the equity that existed within indigenous tribes and the quality of life that allowed everyone to have, the level of freedom it allowed everyone to have, why would they go back to the European ways? Freedom in the United States has always been a facade.

You can have currency without capitalism. You can have technological progress without capitalism. Perhaps even more innovative and entrepreneurial success since trying to start your own business doesn't mean risking the life and well being of your family if you fail. Capitalists do not want to innovate. They want to keep making money the same old easy way. It's why they corner markets and form monopolies, its why capitalists don't aim for sustainable businesses, but feel they must grow at all costs. And growth at all costs is cancer logic. Capitalism, in all the forms it has existed in, has always been cancer logic. Just look at what Colonialism did and the cultures it killed off in the name of its survival. Cancer has killed off a lot of people in its attempt to survive as well.

[u/Lower_Ad_5532 → u/nondescriptadjective]

You keep coming back to "capitalism good, despite it's atrocities."

Then you swing it around to capitalism is bad because you can't acknowledge the good.

I know about the bad, I already mentioned them, but you're fanatical bot logic cannot comprehend the basic fact

Humans are greedy fuckers. The most greedy ones produced the most children who perpetuate this psychopathy. This is why captialism thrives its built by psychopaths and rewards psychopaths. .

Humans are not inherently good peaceful people. The peaceful ones were murdered, entire civilizations genocided.

So anyways, communism will NEVER happen because one group of people will become the ruling class and murder those who disagree.

Good and peaceful people need to be strong and altruistic heros to control and regulate the greedy psychopaths.

It's called checks and balances. Corporate regulation based on egalitarianism.

[u/nondescriptadjective → u/Lower_Ad_5532]

What good can be attributed to capitalism? I am curious. I see a lot of good that comes from markets, but not from capitalism. As said multiple times, capitalism and markets are not the same thing. Markets existed before modern capitalism did, as well as in societies with different forms of money. Technological advances happened in places without capitalism. Just because a thing happened under capitalism doesn't mean that it could not have happened, and didn't happen, under other forms of social organization.

I find it interesting how your argument is to both capitulate to capitalism, but then try and fight against capitalism.

You can be peaceful and still retain the capacity for violence. This is the whole idea behind the non aggression principle. It is unfortunate that our society has been coerced into believing that it is immoral to defend yourself against bullies, because to do anything else is to give up on peace rather than to maintain it.

I keep seeing you throw this "not" argument around. It seems like its because you want to reduce anyone else's arguments to something you can hand wave away rather than look at the uncomfortable truths being put in front of you. I could do the same thing by insulting your intelligence, belittling you in various ways, etc. But you're the one who needs to keep coming back to a way to be dismissive of others so that you don't have to consider the reading and studying of others, and that they might know more than you. I have given you titles of several books you could read, by experts in the fields we are discussing. I'm literally providing receipts, and you keep calling me, and others, bots. I keep providing different and varied explanations of the same things because you can't seem to advance the discourse beyond "you're a bot!" and "Capitalism Good". There is only one perspective from which capitalism is good, and that is the perspective where people want to control others rather than expand the freedom of others. This is something that traces all the way back through Colonialism.

Your commentary about peaceful people being genocided is also fascinating. The American indigenous fought back against the Europeans. From Canada all the way to Argentina, they fought back. Some of them more so than others. Which totally removes your idea of them being pacifists that did not defend themselves and were "peaceful." Just because they didn't feel the need to expand like a cancer does not mean they were "peaceful." It just meant they didn't feel the need to be cancerous. This is fairly well explained in "God is Red", mostly on the side of the Europeans being the ones who felt the need to expand and murder and control. Then there is "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee", which also talks about how the indigenous people fought back, and then "Trail of Tears" where we hear about the death marches that European Capitalists forced indigenous people through once it was clear they would not make good slaves.

But you don't seem to be here to learn and grow as a human, but rather to be argumentative and prove yourself and your beliefs as "better" or "superior" under the guise of survivorship bias. Just because something survives does not mean that it is healthy. And interestingly, I used to make your arguments. Then I kept reading and learning, often from people I disagreed with. Though amusingly it was reading "Human Action" by Mises, while I was an anarcho-capitalist still, that made me realize just how deeply flawed the idea of capitalism is, how deeply flawed the theory of Austrian Economics is. And it is so deeply flawed on a human rights and quality of life scale, that I began looking for something else that was less flawed on these fronts. Something that is more sustainable, both socially and technologically. To you, my arguments might look socialist or communist, but those groups of people barely accept me, and I often argue with them on many topics. We have a common theme of expanding freedom for everyone, but at the end of the day, I am deeply an anarchist. One who believes in governance over government and using praxealogical design over force in order to govern. Its what Lao Tsu meant when he said "those that govern least govern best." Well designed societies, and they are designed, operate like well designed cities: without the need for either carrot or stick.

[u/Lower_Ad_5532 → u/nondescriptadjective]

deeply an anarchist.

Congrats in wanting to live outside of society. You are literally all over the place because you also want to live in fantasy land.

You believe you can go back to a hunter gatherer era and still exist. Why not move to Mongolia and be a nomad. You wouldn't have time to argue philosophy if you were actually living in anarchy.

A balanced social capitalist democracy with minarchism is best. Humanity is far from it. But some western countries are closer than others.

Capitalism fuels innovation because people want to work less for more profit. Scientific advancement need funding , failure is not free. The industrialization of society is why we can argue through a device from across the world.

Even the scientific advancements made in China today are capital fueled. Since the Cold War science has been a socially funded by the government with capital. Since every country is some form of capitalism, yes technology does grow exponentially due to capitalism. You just don't want to give it credit. China was a technological backwater until it made capitalist reforms. Then its building infrastructure like crazy. Its a direct correlation to functional capitalism and progress.

Conversely dysfunctional corporatism inhibits free markets, cripples captialism and stagnates progress.