Anti Capitalist Discussion Thread I: Seize the toothbrushes!

[Great Minarchistan]

Rly. I AM THE ANTI COMINTERN

This is NSG, not the RP forums.

>Implying we cannot larp as the anti-bolshevik patrol

Preposterous!

[Vyzhva]

This is NSG, not the RP forums.

>Implying we cannot larp as the anti-bolshevik patrol

Preposterous!

there goes my doctorate in larping

[Dejanic]

We should strive for peaceful reformation as much as possible, but we should always be on guard in case violent revolution must become an inevitability.

Seems you are in a surprising minority here on NS.

#Acting as if anti Capitalists, never mind revolutionaries are a majority on NS.

The Left is dead on this forum.

[Republic of Europe]

Unrestricted capitalism is a bad thing. Generally, I support the Keynesian theory but I do want the government to return the welfare state. That's what I apply to my nation and instead of oppressing the 99%, I oppress the 1% with heavy taxation!
And other ways that I do not with to talk about

[Great Minarchistan]

Unrestricted capitalism is a bad thing. Generally, I support the Keynesian theory but I do want the government to return the welfare state. That's what I apply to my nation and instead of oppressing the 99%, I oppress the 1% with heavy taxation!

Keynesian economics typically lead to wealth concentration and a slowdown of the economy. I've been writing some notes on it.

And other ways that I do not with to talk about

Spooky.

[The North Remembers]

To be honest, I would love a hybrid between a socialist and a capitalist economy. Socialist as in maybe a high tax rate to maintain the free healthcare, public transport, and healthcare. And maybe to distribute the wealth evenly. It's totally not because I am jealous of millionaires or billionaires. I'm sure that what they did in the past earns them the cash.

But... seeing Rich Kids of Instagram/Snapchat is a totally different thing, I will say that much.

At the same time, maybe a healthy dose of capitalism; not too much, but enough to drive forward innovation.

I think that is the right approach. It's like a bipartisan solution that no one for some reason in the seat of power can come up with or understand it.

[Plans Reple]

The so called "capitalist" system operated by Wall Street insures that 28% of the wealth of America stays in the hands of one person in one thousand -- 160,000 families among 320 million of us. It insures that over half the wealth in America (51%) stays in the hands of one person in one hundred (the famous 1%), that 75% is in the hands of 5% and 89% in the hands of 10%. Over 50% of us have, together, less than 1% of the wealth (stats from http://yourhomeworkhelp.org/do-my-statistics-homework/). A system that maintains such a distribution of wealth is a FAILURE. To claim that it "works" for anyone but one person in 100 is a preposterous lie -- false on the face of it. There is no good reason for ANY American to do ANYTHING but reject this criminal fraud which is destroying our country. It takes a heap of hired liars -- in the media and in the schools -- to prevent it. If a majority of people are waking up to the fact that our lives are being pillaged by a small gang of financial criminals, THANK GOD.

[The Sauganash Union]

This seems as appropriate of a thread as any. I am an investment banking analyst. I work for one of the big, evil so-called "Wall Street firms" (though my office is in Midtown, and I'm currently in a hotel in the Midwest). I typically help more senior investment bankers advise transactions between middle market firms (valued at $500 million in annual revenues or less).

Ask me anything and tell me how I'm exploiting everyone.

[Cekoviu]

This seems as appropriate of a thread as any. I am an investment banking analyst. I work for one of the big, evil so-called "Wall Street firms" (though my office is in Midtown, and I'm currently in a hotel in the Midwest). I typically help more senior investment bankers advise transactions between middle market firms (valued at $500 million in annual revenues or less).

Ask me anything and tell me how I'm exploiting everyone.

You're exploiting everyone.

[The Sauganash Union]

This seems as appropriate of a thread as any. I am an investment banking analyst. I work for one of the big, evil so-called "Wall Street firms" (though my office is in Midtown, and I'm currently in a hotel in the Midwest). I typically help more senior investment bankers advise transactions between middle market firms (valued at $500 million in annual revenues or less).

Ask me anything and tell me how I'm exploiting everyone.

You're exploiting everyone.

Yeah!

[Republic of Europe]

Unrestricted capitalism is a bad thing. Generally, I support the Keynesian theory but I do want the government to return the welfare state. That's what I apply to my nation and instead of oppressing the 99%, I oppress the 1% with heavy taxation!

Keynesian economics typically lead to wealth concentration and a slowdown of the economy. I've been writing some notes on it.

And other ways that I do not with to talk about

Spooky.

Keynes was right about one thing: without market regulations, you create a bubble that when it blows, it will take your nation, your allies and those who import from you down. Wealth concentration should be allowed but a good system that will allow the 1% to contribute is the one that took place in Ancient Athens: the rich citizens were forced to pay for various events, ship equipment, sports and in return, the state would offer them a statue. Those who did not comply were seen with suspicion and were avoided by the general public. I guess this could work on nations that are financially weaker, with contributions of the 1% to lower the national debt, purchase more military equipment and build infrastructure that would belong to the state.

[Great Minarchistan]

The so called "capitalist" system operated by Wall Street insures that 28% of the wealth of America stays in the hands of one person in one thousand -- 160,000 families among 320 million of us. It insures that over half the wealth in America (51%) stays in the hands of one person in one hundred (the famous 1%), that 75% is in the hands of 5% and 89% in the hands of 10%. Over 50% of us have, together, less than 1% of the wealth (stats from http://yourhomeworkhelp.org/do-my-statistics-homework/). A system that maintains such a distribution of wealth is a FAILURE. To claim that it "works" for anyone but one person in 100 is a preposterous lie -- false on the face of it. There is no good reason for ANY American to do ANYTHING but reject this criminal fraud which is destroying our country. It takes a heap of hired liars -- in the media and in the schools -- to prevent it. If a majority of people are waking up to the fact that our lives are being pillaged by a small gang of financial criminals, THANK GOD.

Wall Street isn't all about the top 1%. Friendly reminder that millions of American workers benefit from stock market gains through 401k's and IRAs to guarantee a bulkier nest egg for retirement.

[Great Minarchistan]

Keynes was right about one thing: without market regulations, you create a bubble that when it blows, it will take your nation, your allies and those who import from you down. Wealth concentration should be allowed but a good system that will allow the 1% to contribute is the one that took place in Ancient Athens: the rich citizens were forced to pay for various events, ship equipment, sports and in return, the state would offer them a statue. Those who did not comply were seen with suspicion and were avoided by the general public. I guess this could work on nations that are financially weaker, with contributions of the 1% to lower the national debt, purchase more military equipment and build infrastructure that would belong to the state.

1. Fun fact, this has happened on few if no cases I can remind of. Most economic bubbles were caused by government -- to be specific, central banking.
2. Force contributions by the rich will likely make them flee. Instead incentive business investments through the X-tax seems a way better way to spur growth. And if you want the population overall to participate on the process of capital gains you can always abolish social security and make instead a system based on IRAs where people are encouraged to save and apply their savings on good investments for a better retirement. Been making some sketches on it.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Seems you are in a surprising minority here on NS.

#Acting as if anti Capitalists, never mind revolutionaries are a majority on NS.

The Left is dead on this forum.

I wish it were true ;-;

[Rostavykhan]

Seems you are in a surprising minority here on NS.

#Acting as if anti Capitalists, never mind revolutionaries are a majority on NS.

The Left is dead on this forum.

Don't worry, I still believe in uncompromising violent revolution to utterly destroy the capitalist system and replace it with a powerful Communist state

[Aillyria]

Seems you are in a surprising minority here on NS.

#Acting as if anti Capitalists, never mind revolutionaries are a majority on NS.

The Left is dead on this forum.

It depends on what is meant by "The Left" tbh. No one can agree what the definition is and who's part of it, so the term has little meaning.

[Ostroeuropa]

Seems you are in a surprising minority here on NS.

#Acting as if anti Capitalists, never mind revolutionaries are a majority on NS.

The Left is dead on this forum.

I'd say the overwhelming majority are against neoliberal or libertarian capitalism. Protectionists and Nationalist capitalists make up a sizable portion of the capitalists on the forum. Then you've got more straight up anti-capitalists on the far-right, dissident left, and progressive left.

The problem is that progressives routinely lump in the dissident left as being far-right, and if you do that, then yes, the left is dead on the forum because progressivism is a bankrupt ideology that can't propagate effectively in free speech zones, so there's only a handful of progressive leftists.

If you include the dissident left, i'd say you've got a sizable portion of the forum on the left, perhaps approaching 50%.

[Ostroeuropa]

This seems as appropriate of a thread as any. I am an investment banking analyst. I work for one of the big, evil so-called "Wall Street firms" (though my office is in Midtown, and I'm currently in a hotel in the Midwest). I typically help more senior investment bankers advise transactions between middle market firms (valued at $500 million in annual revenues or less).

Ask me anything and tell me how I'm exploiting everyone.

What is the justification for the high salaries some of these firms give, given the existence of the Bailouts?
Do you think it would have been better to let some firms tank and their employees lose their jobs, rather than give over taxpayer money to financial institutions who then handed it out in bonuses and such to people?

Should the welfare of the public be sacrificed to ensure a no-risk environment for financiers? And if there is no risk, whence the justification for their money?

If the economy needed a financial injection following the crash, why was that financial injection not given to firms which performed well and the poor performing firms allowed to tank and fail?

[Aillyria]

#Acting as if anti Capitalists, never mind revolutionaries are a majority on NS.

The Left is dead on this forum.

I'd say the overwhelming majority are against neoliberal or libertarian capitalism. Protectionists and Nationalist capitalists make up a sizable portion of the capitalists on the forum. Then you've got more straight up anti-capitalists on the far-right, dissident left, and progressive left.

The problem is that progressives routinely lump in the dissident left as being far-right, and if you do that, then yes, the left is dead on the forum because progressivism is a bankrupt ideology that can't propagate effectively in free speech zones, so there's only a handful of progressive leftists.

If you include the dissident left, i'd say you've got a sizable portion of the forum on the left, perhaps approaching 50%.

I think you meant to say regressive left and regressivism.

[The Sauganash Union]

This seems as appropriate of a thread as any. I am an investment banking analyst. I work for one of the big, evil so-called "Wall Street firms" (though my office is in Midtown, and I'm currently in a hotel in the Midwest). I typically help more senior investment bankers advise transactions between middle market firms (valued at $500 million in annual revenues or less).

Ask me anything and tell me how I'm exploiting everyone.

What is the justification for the high salaries some of these firms give, given the existence of the Bailouts?

Compensation for working 100 hours a week and not being able to invest ourselves. The increase in pay as you rise and end-year bonuses are incentives to increase performance (there's little job security in the industry, so the large pay helps make it worthwhile).

Do you think it would have been better to let some firms tank and their employees lose their jobs, rather than give over taxpayer money to financial institutions who then handed it out in bonuses and such to people?

Letting the failing firms tank would've been the wise thing to do. If they fuck up, they deserve to fall.

However, the bonuses are entitled to the bankers who earned them, as bonuses are in their employment contracts. They'd be able to sue if they weren't paid them.

Should the welfare of the public be sacrificed to ensure a no-risk environment for financiers?

Hell no.

And if there is no risk, whence the justification for their money?

Exactly. The government bailing everyone out removes the risk, and kind of makes the whole thing pointless. Might as well abolish all jobs and have the government just send you a check in the mail.

If the economy needed a financial injection following the crash, why was that financial injection not given to firms which performed well and the poor performing firms allowed to tank and fail?

Giving money to powerful firms is a very egregious form of corruption. There's too much potential for conflicts of interest for me to be okay with that.

Giving capital to the poor performing firms is stupid.

I'd prefer neither.

[Ostroeuropa]

What is the justification for the high salaries some of these firms give, given the existence of the Bailouts?

Compensation for working 100 hours a week and not being able to invest ourselves. The increase in pay as you rise and end-year bonuses are incentives to increase performance (there's little job security in the industry, so the large pay helps make it worthwhile).

Do you think it would have been better to let some firms tank and their employees lose their jobs, rather than give over taxpayer money to financial institutions who then handed it out in bonuses and such to people?

Letting the failing firms tank would've been the wise thing to do. If they fuck up, they deserve to fall.

However, the bonuses are entitled to the bankers who earned them, as bonuses are in their employment contracts. They'd be able to sue if they weren't paid them.

Should the welfare of the public be sacrificed to ensure a no-risk environment for financiers?

Hell no.

And if there is no risk, whence the justification for their money?

Exactly. The government bailing everyone out removes the risk, and kind of makes the whole thing pointless. Might as well abolish all jobs and have the government just send you a check in the mail.

If the economy needed a financial injection following the crash, why was that financial injection not given to firms which performed well and the poor performing firms allowed to tank and fail?

Giving money to powerful firms is a very egregious form of corruption. There's too much potential for conflicts of interest for me to be okay with that.

Giving capital to the poor performing firms is stupid.

I'd prefer neither.

Fair enough then.
Given that the bailouts did in fact occur, what obligations do you think should be present on the firms that received them?

[Hanyata]

Definitely nice to see a thread for leftists. I guess I fall somewhere along the lines of Autonomism and the SI. The biggest questions I have at this point are:

1) What is the degree that Ecology serves a purpose in any properly communist theory (of revolution and post-Capitalism)?

2) Can Marxism, as it stands, theorize conditions after modernity (for example, can Marxist aesthetics give an account of contemporary avant-garde painting, sculpture, or music)?

3) What is reason to accept Dialectical Materialism (I have Engels in mind here) as a philosophical position?

[West Leas Oros]

To be honest, I would love a hybrid between a socialist and a capitalist economy. Socialist as in maybe a high tax rate to maintain the free healthcare, public transport, and healthcare. And maybe to distribute the wealth evenly. It's totally not because I am jealous of millionaires or billionaires. I'm sure that what they did in the past earns them the cash.

But... seeing Rich Kids of Instagram/Snapchat is a totally different thing, I will say that much.

At the same time, maybe a healthy dose of capitalism; not too much, but enough to drive forward innovation.

I think that is the right approach. It's like a bipartisan solution that no one for some reason in the seat of power can come up with or understand it.

Probably because a bipartisan solution requires compromise. *shudders* The Horror!

[Aillyria]

To be honest, I would love a hybrid between a socialist and a capitalist economy. Socialist as in maybe a high tax rate to maintain the free healthcare, public transport, and healthcare. And maybe to distribute the wealth evenly. It's totally not because I am jealous of millionaires or billionaires. I'm sure that what they did in the past earns them the cash.

But... seeing Rich Kids of Instagram/Snapchat is a totally different thing, I will say that much.

At the same time, maybe a healthy dose of capitalism; not too much, but enough to drive forward innovation.

There can be no hybridization between socialism and capitalism, they are mutually exclusive concepts. Socialism and Capitalism aren't on a spectrum, there's no "more or less" of either. A system is either one or the other, full stop.

I think that is the right approach. It's like a bipartisan solution that no one for some reason in the seat of power can come up with or understand it.

Probably because a bipartisan solution requires compromise. *shudders* The Horror!

There's nothing to compromise, by submitting to "bipartisanship" with capitalists, you've already lost.

[Manokan Republic]

To be honest, I would love a hybrid between a socialist and a capitalist economy. Socialist as in maybe a high tax rate to maintain the free healthcare, public transport, and healthcare. And maybe to distribute the wealth evenly. It's totally not because I am jealous of millionaires or billionaires. I'm sure that what they did in the past earns them the cash.

But... seeing Rich Kids of Instagram/Snapchat is a totally different thing, I will say that much.

At the same time, maybe a healthy dose of capitalism; not too much, but enough to drive forward innovation.

There can be no hybridization between socialism and capitalism, they are mutually exclusive concepts. Socialism and Capitalism aren't on a spectrum, there's no "more or less" of either. A system is either one or the other, full stop.

Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, basically all of Europe and even the U.S... no hybrids you say? xP