I am now convinced that capitalism is evil

[Brisbot]

I've been meaning to explore different economic systems more so I can think more clearly about the pros and cons of systems.

The issue is when people worship these systems to the point as someone pointed out, it's above morality. Money should never matter above morality. It needs to be baked into people from birth as it is obvious why. But people do not do so thinking Capitalism is some weird savior where the people with the most merit make the most money. Which isn't true really in the USA. It's like... 30% true. You have upward mobility in the area you inherited through class, genetics, school, etc etc.

But it's always hard to get past a certain point which is different for everyone. So many people here don't realize that. So they say stupid shit like "All Lives Matter" because they don't understand perspective of others and think everyone is equal.

I have a conservative friend who is basically like this. He said, well yeah not everyone is born equal but that just means they need to work harder, then they will be equal. It's the illusion of the meritocracy for the people who do have option to have a better life thru hard work, thinking everyone else also has it. He also thinks America has pure intentions overseas so he is all about America having a million bases everywhere and spending 4 times as much tax payer money to the military than Russia (or is it China?).

You can also have communist economy that is similarly fucked because the economy is again more important than morality and human life. Religiously. The system will save us.

Imagine if we had a capitalist system where everyone was aware of the pitfalls of capitalism instead of worshiping it. So that said pitfalls could be filled in with a social safety net. Correctly. And fear mongering about poor people coming to take your hard earned money was something that made people roll their eyes instead of lock their doors and start counting how many non-whites are starting to migrate into the neighborhood to know when it's time to take flight.

There are people who worry about being cucked due to their shit education, lack of worldliness, religious worship of politicians, the purity of the economy, and their skin color.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Brisbot

[zlemflolia]

1 hour ago, drillkicker said:

Ok but what about the article?  I understand that you envision some transition into a dictatorial communist ecosystem, but where would it come from?  What kinds of intensities are extant that would allow for this?  Capital is more pervasive now than at any point ever before and it hasn't indicated that it's capable of introducing any kind of negative feedback into its process.  I'm not concerned here with what should happen, but with what will happen

That was my response to the article, which was a discussion of accelerationism, neoliberalism, capitalism, and fascism.  I didn't really describe what I think should happen except for a bit at the end.  I don't know what should happen, and nobody knows what will happen.  Apart from that the contradictions inherent to capitalism will continue to spasm and cause combinations of proletarian unrest and class consciousness in regions where they are being sufficiently educated by communists and sufficiently not redirected in their frustrations towards social democratic liberalism in much of the west for example

There is no such thing as "some transition into a dictatorial communist ecosystem" there is only such a thing as vanguard parties capable and willing, or not so, of taking control of the state and making that become the case.  It's also worth me pointing out potential implications of the phrasing "transition into a dictatorial communist ecosystem" implying "dictatorial" being a state which the hypothetical transition is bringing into being

On the contrary, dictatorial is the present state.  And yet, dictatorships of the proletariat tend to have happened historically in regions not yet deeply developed by capitalism and gripped by a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.  The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie seems very resilient once put into place and allowed to maintain itself for long periods of time, and applies fascism when needed to maintain its existence.  The article says this:

With regards to the second question, it is clear the Nazi fascism of the interwar period is the critical pivot point of German history without which understanding any examination of neoliberalism must be incomplete. Marxists, however, have an aversion to any serious examination of fascism — it is a mystery shrouded in a cloud of incoherent narrative that goes something like this:

There was this really bad guy, who, backed by, variously, capitalists or peasants or declassed elements or ‘politically backward’ workers, did a bunch of bad stuff to a lot of people. But the free world kicked his ass. Making the world safe for democracy and quadrennial election cycles.

(This recounting of Marxist inter-war world history is brought to you by The Annenberg Foundation and by the wonderful people of the Oil and Natural Gas industry. And by contributions from my followers like you. Thank you)

Pretty disingenuous claim made by the author, since even a dipshit like myself can describe a more coherent conception of fascism from a Marxist perspective, as some combination of forceful bourgeois destruction of the vanguard of class opposition and its surrounding consciousness within the proletariat, genocide reminiscent of that which happened in the Americas being applied to regions more highly developed and more close to us in time and space, and deepening of the absolute dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with aesthetics of revolutionary and populist messaging, etc. 

[auxien]

14 minutes ago, Brisbot said:

I've been meaning to explore different economic systems more so I can think more clearly about the pros and cons of systems.

The issue is when people worship these systems to the point as someone pointed out, it's above morality. Money should never matter above morality. It needs to be baked into people from birth as it is obvious why. But people do not do so thinking Capitalism is some weird savior where the people with the most merit make the most money. Which isn't true really in the USA. It's like... 30% true.

You can also have communist economy that is similarly fucked because the economy is again more important than morality and human life. Religiously.

people's morals often differ, in sometimes surprising ways. there was never some 'one moral certainty' that any decision regarding money or capital interest could be measured against.

and to further complicate things, the last ~50 years or whatever we've seen, at least in the West, the slow tying of capital interest with morality, of course in ways designed to benefit the capital (and therefore the rich and powerful).

and even past (or farther back than?) that, the concept of possessions is itself immoral in some sense or another. 

and ultimately human proliferation is itself immoral. we're destroying the earth as quickly as we fucking can by simply existing without check. the moral thing is to not exist, to not breed, to pare back any future human population to a miniscule fraction of itself.

17 minutes ago, Brisbot said:

Imagine if we had a capitalist system where everyone was aware of the pitfalls of capitalism instead of worshiping it. 

you're not wrong at all, but i'd say push it further and let's generalize that to say 'imagine if we had a system where everyone was aware and informed and educated' and let the chips fall where they may after that.

[Brisbot]

19 minutes ago, auxien said:

people's morals often differ, in sometimes surprising ways. there was never some 'one moral certainty' that any decision regarding money or capital interest could be measured against.

and to further complicate things, the last ~50 years or whatever we've seen, at least in the West, the slow tying of capital interest with morality, of course in ways designed to benefit the capital (and therefore the rich and powerful).

and even past (or farther back than?) that, the concept of possessions is itself immoral in some sense or another. 

and ultimately human proliferation is itself immoral. we're destroying the earth as quickly as we fucking can by simply existing without check. the moral thing is to not exist, to not breed, to pare back any future human population to a miniscule fraction of itself.

you're not wrong at all, but i'd say push it further and let's generalize that to say 'imagine if we had a system where everyone was aware and informed and educated' and let the chips fall where they may after that.

I think the economy needs to be looked at as a tool, not a static thing to worship for money to flow in. A tool that can and NEEDS to evolve over time as we learn more about how it works, and more about our understanding of people and what contributes to a happier life etc etc etc etc. It needs to be malleable in that sense. But you also need people to see it that way, which is hard when your govt. forces a static understanding of capitalism, communism, socialism, etc etc. to where you have to be able to read about economic systems with a mind open enough to change.

Good luck finding that! Lol. I have been wanting to really dive deeper into different economies as I find it interesting. Most people though will want a simple answer, it's just how most people work - they like patterns as it makes life simpler for them. America is a Meritocracy, if you don't like it, you can giiit out!

You could write a book on it and still it wouldn't scratch the surface of everything that needs to change about humans relationship with their economy and their moral priorities in life.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Brisbot

[Brisbot]

And to add one more thought. The only way for an economy to be allowed to evolve would be to course correct for mistakes without everyone wanting to jump ship to the other political parties ideology if something goes wrong or is miscalculated somehow. It's okay to fuck up if you also can fix the fuck up to hopefully get one step closer to a better economy for everyone.

So you would have to teach people that failure is an opportunity to learn, not a moral failing leading to someone being a loser who doesn't already have all the answers. Then over time that could be applied to broader things like the economy. It's a fundamental mindset that needs to change, and expecting older people to do that is a waste of time.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Brisbot

[zlemflolia]

2 hours ago, auxien said:

and ultimately human proliferation is itself immoral. we're destroying the earth as quickly as we fucking can by simply existing without check. the moral thing is to not exist, to not breed, to pare back any future human population to a miniscule fraction of itself.

i don't like this malthusian eco-fascist mentality i always complain when i read it. it's only specific industrial processes being done by specific types of societies in specific regions where this actually applies, and relates moreso to the processes themselves than the people involved.  this non-reproduction idea is reminiscent of self-applied eugenics vaguely

[auxien]

18 minutes ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

it's only specific industrial processes being done by specific types of societies in specific regions where this actually applies,

tell that to the bulk of these poor fuckers that were wiped out before industrial processes existed and/or in no relation to industrial processes.

[zlemflolia]

7 minutes ago, auxien said:

tell that to the bulk of these poor fuckers that were wiped out before industrial processes existed and/or in no relation to industrial processes.

 

industrial processes is overly specific, modes of human activity is better. industrial processes are by far the main issue

Edited September 9, 2021 by ilqx hermolia xpli

[auxien]

9 minutes ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

industrial processes is overly specific, modes of human activity is better. industrial processes are by far the main issue

human activity is the problem, yes. exactly. industrial processes are one of these human activities. too many humans, too many (now advanced!) ways of destroying the world around us, to greater degrees because of our advancing technologies and 'needs' and the ever-growing population.

one solution would be to all be much smarter and less selfish in our ways and balance our existence with the world. that has... *checks history* ...yeah, that's never happened. 

so until there even looks to be some hope of that happening, i'm going to believe that the only way to 'fix' things is as i stated above.

we're way past capitalism discussion now, but i guess it's related in some sense.

[zlemflolia]

12 minutes ago, auxien said:

human activity is the problem, yes. exactly. industrial processes are one of these human activities. too many humans, too many (now advanced!) ways of destroying the world around us, to greater degrees because of our advancing technologies and 'needs' and the ever-growing population.

one solution would be to all be much smarter and less selfish in our ways and balance our existence with the world. that has... *checks history* ...yeah, that's never happened. 

so until there even looks to be some hope of that happening, i'm going to believe that the only way to 'fix' things is as i stated above.

we're way past capitalism discussion now, but i guess it's related in some sense.

there are historical examples, but casual human activities aren't the things driving this.  i've personally killed very few animals in a direct way through catching bugs as a kid or whatever.  these are all abstracted away through the division of labor and specific labor forms like amazon rainforest lumberjacks.  i think there is no doubt capitalism specifically is the main issue now .  capitalism, the division of labor abstracting out the process of killing (plants, animals) so no individual feels responsible.  is decreasing the population by 1 or 2 by withholding personal reproduction effective? seems like individualist lifestyleism to me, similar to veganism.  even if we killed 50% of people on earth, i'm not convinced we've solved the issue at all, because the issue relates to the future trajectory of humans.  they will simply reproduce until we reach that same point again, and if capitalism continues being used this will continue.  no doubt socialism can use the same industrial processes but socialism introduces rational control of these activities, of labor, which is impossible for capitalism's inherent anarchy of the market.  socialism is the only way forward in time and for right now

[auxien]

21 minutes ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

there are historical examples, but casual human activities aren't the things driving this. 

'casual' human activities like eating and farming and hunting and...yknow, existing? that's exactly what drove many of those above animals to extinction. 

26 minutes ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

even if we killed 50% of people on earth, i'm not convinced we've solved the issue at all

i said 'miniscule fraction' which would be far, far, far less that 50%. doing a Thanos fingersnap for humans right now would only set us back like...40 years or something, if that long. worthless.

33 minutes ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

is decreasing the population by 1 or 2 by withholding personal reproduction effective?

it seems to be working just fine in some countries as we speak. some countries' populations are plateauing/stagnating.

34 minutes ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

no doubt socialism can use the same industrial processes but socialism introduces rational control of these activities, of labor, which is impossible for capitalism's inherent anarchy of the market.  socialism is the only way forward in time and for right now

[zlemflolia]

not with that attitude

[prdctvsm]

eco-socialism

https://greattransition.org/images/Lowy-Why-Ecosocialism.pdf

Socialist Review considers Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism

[brian trageskin]

9 hours ago, drillkicker said:

By semiological assemblages I mean the crystallized forms through which expression and communication happens through signifiers.  For example, currency as a signifier of Capital and buying power.  As a material alone, currency is almost entirely useless, but as a signifier it equates to power.  This isn't imaginary, it's a real semiological relationship that affects the world just as concretely as gravity.  These structures are upheld by the unconscious processes of their respective social ecosystems.  They constantly change in a machine-like way over time, through intensive forces that displace (or deterritorialize) signifiers and attach them to different signified/referent couplings.

Among the different modes of transformation are molecular revolutions, or internal shifts away from a certain semiological foundation to a new central structure entirely.  A good and well known example might be the Protestant Reformation.

Since there are still capitalistic semiological assemblages in place that are enforced through things like repressive schooling and currency, a molecular revolution would be a necessary requirement of a political structure that seeks to quash capitalistic movement.

The even bigger problem is that capitalism isn't dependent on a specific semiology, but is itself a force of transformation within assemblages.  A repressive structure that hopes to throttle Capital would somehow need to prevent a capitalistic cybernetics from infiltrating.  I don't have any vision of what this would look like.

the term "molecular revolution" is so fucking dumb though. i just find it super cringy when a person in one field of study uses a term from a different field as a metaphor for a concept, as part of their theory, when the original term refers to a tangible, measurable thing. i'm probably guilty of having done so in the past, so this isn't me proclaiming my superiority. hell, i've said so much bullshit in my life and continue to do so on this very forum, although i try to learn from my mistakes. so this isn't necessarily criticism towards you, it's not like that term is your invention. and guattari's concept might be valid, that's not the issue here. 

anyway, what's an oedipal semiological structure? i get a sense that we're getting full into bullshit territory with this. 

9 hours ago, beerwolf said:

I’ve got a mate who’s ultra left and some kind of Anti Capitalism Anarchist Warlord. You know why? Because he’s really fucking intelligent and extremely artistic but because he’s a massive underachiever (for reasons I’m not comfortable in explaining because he’s a friend of mine) and makes sandwiches in a factory he’s well fucking angry with life. 

it's all about that crust, man  

i myself am the archbishop of underachievers - i challenge anyone on watmm to be as much of a pathetic loser as i am - long-term unemployed, living off the backs of others, used to flip burgers part-time. the difference is i'm pretty dumb. i used to think i was smart for some reason (delusion and narcissism), these days i'm amazed at how dumb and ignorant i actually am. i'm still very narcissistic but getting less and less delusional each day. my narcissism is self-evident to anyone reading this, i'm currently typing about myself for no reason other than to satisfy my need for attention, this forum being the mirror in which i contemplate my self-deception. can't stand libtards though  

[brian trageskin]

13 hours ago, beerwolf said:

 he’s well fucking angry with life. 

i forgot to add that unlike your friend, i'm not angry with life, although i have been in the past. 

btw, i'm not sure i used the word "delusional" correctly (again, i'm not that good at english). i meant delusional as in making false assumptions, not as in having a psychotic disorder. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by brian trageskin

[Freak of the week]

i am now convinced that this thread is ...

Edited September 9, 2021 by Freak of the week

[may be rude]

the marxist wing will doom the democrat party in the US, only to eventually realize that capitalism is fine and we just need social programs, sane tax rates, and outlawing dark money in politics

 

nobody likes communism. marxism scares people from half the world. 

 

not sure if this is an info op or not. 

 

don't participate in the fight for better government! climb into a rabbit hole about revolution!

Edited September 9, 2021 by very honest

[milkface]

8 minutes ago, very honest said:

the marxist wing will doom the democrat party in the US, only to eventually realize that capitalism is fine and we just need social programs, sane tax rates, and outlawing dark money in politics

 

nobody likes communism. marxism scares people from half the world. 

 

not sure if this is an info op or not. 

im going to guess you're an american lol

[may be rude]

1 minute ago, milkface said:

im going to guess you're an american lol

i was explicitly talking about the US. yeah

i'm guessing you're a brit

Edited September 9, 2021 by very honest

[brian trageskin]

i do have a big penis though. i should have gone into porn.

[zero]

2 hours ago, brian trageskin said:

btw, i'm not sure i used the word "delusional" correctly (again, i'm not that good at english). i meant delusional as in making false assumptions, not as in having a psychotic disorder. 

oh c'mon man...your english is fine. I've seen you say that before and thought wtf is he talking about. remember, here on watmm, even native english speakers like myself sometimes have no fuckin clue what other english speakers here are going on about. 

[brian trageskin]

9 minutes ago, zero said:

oh c'mon man...your english is fine. I've seen you say that before and thought wtf is he talking about. remember, here on watmm, even native english speakers like myself sometimes have no fuckin clue what other english speakers here are going on about. 

i spend an awful lot of time searching for translations though. you'd think my english would have improved dramatically by now but that's not the case. not that anyone gives a shit anyway.

[milkface]

2 hours ago, very honest said:

i'm guessing you're a brit

yeah good observation cause my opinion is right and yours is not!!!!

[diatoms]

2 hours ago, brian trageskin said:

i do have a big penis though. i should have gone into porn.

                                                                           set up a page on onlyfans

                                                                      there's still time to make a splash in this world

[Freak of the week]

6 hours ago, brian trageskin said:

long-term unemployed, living off the backs of others, used to flip burgers part-time

based and redpilled