Why do people support capitalism?

[Farnworth]

:twisted:

And the mob-rule of cultureless vermin who murder and rape anything they're unwilling to work for out of sheer envy and spite is better?

Yeah, no thanks. I'll take the Eagle and the Crown over the guillotine and the gulag any day of the week.

I dunno. Has it ever come to your mind that you're part of that group - the masses? Most people don't murder, rape, or whatever... I can't say that of the likes of prince Andrew.
Anyway, new account, I see - probably a bot account.

I am indeed poor working class and can say that a majority of us don't buy into the communist BS. I believe the term is "silent majority", and since your side murdered Charlie Kirk more of us have been speaking up and speaking out. But please, by all means, continue to deny reality. It is your right to do in a free society, and while I may not agree with your point of view, I'll stand by your right to make those choices.

'Tis why Conservatives and Capitalists have and always will be the right side

[Camtropia]

1984 is about Hitler and Stalin

Wrong, it's about Stalin and O'Riordan. Orwell loved Hitler and his hatred of the Soviet Union came from the fact that he never visited the land.

I'm genuinely curious as to where you keep reading this sort of thing.

Orwell stated in "Why I Write" (1946): "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." Orwell's conception of socialism was of a planned economy alongside democracy. (Source)

Although Orwell never visited the USSR, he fought alongside their soldiers and the Spanish Stalinists that they trained, and saw how they shot priests, purged anarchists and Trotskyists, and seemed to devote more attention to keeping the International Brigades compliant to Moscow through terror than actually trying to win the war. This experience made Orwell realise that totalitarianism in all its forms is evil. The combination of left-wing views and anti-totalitarianism made him a natural democratic socialist; the idea that he liked Hitler (as you seem to think everyone who dislikes Stalin does) is blatantly ridiculous.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

The Tsars who exploited the working class and enriched themselves like Putin, on the premise of being born out of the right cunt?

Yeah, no thanks.

And the mob-rule of cultureless vermin who murder and rape anything they're unwilling to work for out of sheer envy and spite is better?

Yeah, no thanks. I'll take the Eagle and the Crown over the guillotine and the gulag any day of the week.

The Eagle and the Crown are humans who are just as bad as anyone else.

The choice is do you want the nation to be ruled in the interest of a few asshole humans, or many?

Seems like an obvious choice for me.

[Farnworth]

And the mob-rule of cultureless vermin who murder and rape anything they're unwilling to work for out of sheer envy and spite is better?

Yeah, no thanks. I'll take the Eagle and the Crown over the guillotine and the gulag any day of the week.

The Eagle and the Crown are humans who are just as bad as anyone else.

The choice is do you want the nation to be ruled in the interest of a few asshole humans, or many?

Seems like an obvious choice for me.

Do they need to be assholes? What's so wrong with the understanding that people are just people, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse? Are you the kind to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or focus inward on yourself rather than worry about things that are beyond your control?

Class conflict is a lie, an illusion meant to sow the seeds of discontent and unrest where there should be none. It distracts people from the truth that societies are built from the ground-up, not the top down. If you want change to happen, you have to change the individual and you can't change or control anyone but yourself.

Unless, of course, you want camps, death squads, brownshirts and other tyrannical measures in place, and people tend to fight back against those once they've been pushed around enough. Even the Soviet Union couldn't get away with tyranny forever, and the CCP is closer to crumbling than ever before, thank God.

[I S T O]

1984 is about Hitler and Stalin

Wrong, it's about Stalin and O'Riordan. Orwell loved Hitler and his hatred of the Soviet Union came from the fact that he never visited the land.

Genuinely, how do you type these things with a straight face

[Panplatina]

And the mob-rule of cultureless vermin who murder and rape anything they're unwilling to work for out of sheer envy and spite is better?

Yeah, no thanks. I'll take the Eagle and the Crown over the guillotine and the gulag any day of the week.

The Eagle and the Crown are humans who are just as bad as anyone else.

The choice is do you want the nation to be ruled in the interest of a few asshole humans, or many?

Seems like an obvious choice for me.

Communism has never answered to the people. In practice, Communism just leads a dictatorship that supposedly respects it's workers while few live luxuriously, supposedly gives workers control over the means of production while it instead gives those means to the state. The state is not the people, the state should serve to the people, but in Communism attempts the people have always ended up serving the state under threat of disproportionate violence.

Instead of trusting a few people with the government and other few with the means of production, you trust the same with both. And if you get so far where you end up at that spot, you likely aren't exactly the martyr.

[Magna-Parva]

In practice, Communism just leads a dictatorship that supposedly respects it's workers while few live luxuriously, supposedly gives workers control over the means of production while it instead gives those means to the state.

Indeed. And these days most real "socialists" are really the urban elite progressives who read Marx while they drink their lattes. That's a sign the political philosophy has reached its end-stages of popularity, at least in the West.

[I S T O]

The Eagle and the Crown are humans who are just as bad as anyone else.

The choice is do you want the nation to be ruled in the interest of a few asshole humans, or many?

Seems like an obvious choice for me.

Do they need to be assholes? What's so wrong with the understanding that people are just people, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse? Are you the kind to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or focus inward on yourself rather than worry about things that are beyond your control?

People are just people, people are assholes. Its easier to be self-interested than selfless, therefore more people on average are assholes. We are also taking about states, which is the ultimate positon of power, and power attracts the morally currupt (assholes)

Class conflict is a lie, an illusion meant to sow the seeds of discontent and unrest where there should be none. It distracts people from the truth that societies are built from the ground-up, not the top down. If you want change to happen, you have to change the individual and you can't change or control anyone but yourself.

While I do agree that there are great embellishments when it comes to the class war (such as each class being some homogeneous block that all want the same thing). Class conflict is most definitely not a lie

Unless, of course, you want camps, death squads, brownshirts and other tyrannical measures in place, and people tend to fight back against those once they've been pushed around enough. Even the Soviet Union couldn't get away with tyranny forever, and the CCP is closer to crumbling than ever before, thank God.

PRC 10 WEEKS TILL COLLAPSE!!!!!!!!!
the PRC won't collapse (barring a war) until like 2080 at the earliest

[Untecna]

In practice, Communism just leads a dictatorship that supposedly respects it's workers while few live luxuriously, supposedly gives workers control over the means of production while it instead gives those means to the state.

Indeed. And these days most real "socialists" are really the urban elite progressives who read Marx while they drink their lattes. That's a sign the political philosophy has reached its end-stages of popularity, at least in the West.

Lmao. Okay buddy.

[Khardsland]

Genuinely, how do you type these things with a straight face

Knowing that what I say is correct helps with confidence. You should try it too.

[Slembana]

The Eagle and the Crown are humans who are just as bad as anyone else.

The choice is do you want the nation to be ruled in the interest of a few asshole humans, or many?

Seems like an obvious choice for me.

Communism has never answered to the people. In practice, Communism just leads a dictatorship that supposedly respects it's workers while few live luxuriously, supposedly gives workers control over the means of production while it instead gives those means to the state. The state is not the people, the state should serve to the people, but in Communism attempts the people have always ended up serving the state under threat of disproportionate violence.

Instead of trusting a few people with the government and other few with the means of production, you trust the same with both. And if you get so far where you end up at that spot, you likely aren't exactly the martyr.

Communism. Has. No. State.

Good grief, there are some absolutely nonsensical posts on these past two pages. I really don’t understand how one can be a poor working class person yet support capitalism, and also claim that social mobility is more possible under capitalism. And supporting the Russian Empire? That regime was an authoritarian shithole that led pogroms of Jews. May it rot in piss.

[Farnworth]

Communism has never answered to the people. In practice, Communism just leads a dictatorship that supposedly respects it's workers while few live luxuriously, supposedly gives workers control over the means of production while it instead gives those means to the state. The state is not the people, the state should serve to the people, but in Communism attempts the people have always ended up serving the state under threat of disproportionate violence.

Instead of trusting a few people with the government and other few with the means of production, you trust the same with both. And if you get so far where you end up at that spot, you likely aren't exactly the martyr.

Communism. Has. No. State.

Good grief, there are some absolutely nonsensical posts on these past two pages. I really don’t understand how one can be a poor working class person yet support capitalism, and also claim that social mobility is more possible under capitalism. And supporting the Russian Empire? That regime was an authoritarian shithole that led pogroms of Jews. May it rot in piss.

One of those great mysteries of life, I suppose. If you know you know, buddy

[Daemonkin of Corn]

The Eagle and the Crown are humans who are just as bad as anyone else.

The choice is do you want the nation to be ruled in the interest of a few asshole humans, or many?

Seems like an obvious choice for me.

Do they need to be assholes? What's so wrong with the understanding that people are just people, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse? Are you the kind to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or focus inward on yourself rather than worry about things that are beyond your control?

Class conflict is a lie, an illusion meant to sow the seeds of discontent and unrest where there should be none. It distracts people from the truth that societies are built from the ground-up, not the top down. If you want change to happen, you have to change the individual and you can't change or control anyone but yourself.

Unless, of course, you want camps, death squads, brownshirts and other tyrannical measures in place, and people tend to fight back against those once they've been pushed around enough. Even the Soviet Union couldn't get away with tyranny forever, and the CCP is closer to crumbling than ever before, thank God.

You are right. People are people.

Which is why they should rule themselves.

There is no special class of people who are magically good at ruling. Kings are pointless. Nobility is a myth. Meritocracy is also a myth.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

The Eagle and the Crown are humans who are just as bad as anyone else.

The choice is do you want the nation to be ruled in the interest of a few asshole humans, or many?

Seems like an obvious choice for me.

Communism has never answered to the people. In practice, Communism just leads a dictatorship that supposedly respects it's workers while few live luxuriously, supposedly gives workers control over the means of production while it instead gives those means to the state. The state is not the people, the state should serve to the people, but in Communism attempts the people have always ended up serving the state under threat of disproportionate violence.

Instead of trusting a few people with the government and other few with the means of production, you trust the same with both. And if you get so far where you end up at that spot, you likely aren't exactly the martyr.

Im talking about democracy lol.

"The state is not the people"

Yet the State is comprised entirely of people. And in a democracy any person can be involved in the State. So in a democracy if the State isnt "the people" what the fuck is it? An alien?

[Herargon]

I am indeed poor working class and can say that a majority of us don't buy into the communist BS. I believe the term is "silent majority", and since your side murdered Charlie Kirk more of us have been speaking up and speaking out. But please, by all means, continue to deny reality. It is your right to do in a free society, and while I may not agree with your point of view, I'll stand by your right to make those choices.

'Tis why Conservatives and Capitalists have and always will be the right side

Yup, certainly a bot account. No poor worker falls for the lie of someone who literally said empathy was a weakness, and then got shot by a Republican, y'know, one of the MAGAites.

Charlie Kirk was a domestic terrorist who said kiddos getting shot was fine as long as it meant guns could be kept. I had warned against such wordings, and what does one get with a ton of guns in the hands of a trigger happy populace? More gun violence. If you want to word it correctly, it should be "Charlie Kirk died after promoting violence".

If anyone denies reality, I'm afraid the bot is a bit poorly coded. Capitalism, ultimately, is the ideology that a rapist felon billionnaire oligarch like Trump holds. If you support that, you can do so, but that's not very working class of you. Only through anarchocommunism can the worker be liberated, living in free communes without the terror and poverty that a state brings with itself.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

:twisted:

I dunno. Has it ever come to your mind that you're part of that group - the masses? Most people don't murder, rape, or whatever... I can't say that of the likes of prince Andrew.
Anyway, new account, I see - probably a bot account.

I am indeed poor working class and can say that a majority of us don't buy into the communist BS. I believe the term is "silent majority", and since your side murdered Charlie Kirk more of us have been speaking up and speaking out. But please, by all means, continue to deny reality. It is your right to do in a free society, and while I may not agree with your point of view, I'll stand by your right to make those choices.

'Tis why Conservatives and Capitalists have and always will be the right side

Charlie Kirk was killed by one guy.

[Farnworth]

Communism has never answered to the people. In practice, Communism just leads a dictatorship that supposedly respects it's workers while few live luxuriously, supposedly gives workers control over the means of production while it instead gives those means to the state. The state is not the people, the state should serve to the people, but in Communism attempts the people have always ended up serving the state under threat of disproportionate violence.

Instead of trusting a few people with the government and other few with the means of production, you trust the same with both. And if you get so far where you end up at that spot, you likely aren't exactly the martyr.

Im talking about democracy lol.

"The state is not the people"

Yet the State is comprised entirely of people. And in a democracy any person can be involved in the State. So in a democracy if the State isnt "the people" what the fuck is it? An alien?

I'm presuming you've never read Aristotle and are unaware that Majority Rule can, and very easily will, devolve into its own form of tyranny, tyranny of the Majority, also known as Mob Rule?

About the only element of Democracy worth salvaging is fair and just representation, of all peoples and social classes, and mind the word "representation" and not "control".

Its why most "democracies" are mislabeled Republics, as the premise behind Republicanism is Common Good, which can be and occasionally is opposed to Majority Rule. A just society benefits its constituent members, often defined solidly by Citizenship, regardless of factors like birth, wealth or the inheritance thereof, social status, etc.

This said a Monarchy is not inherently any less representative of the interests of its citizens than a Republic is, and Republics can just as easily devolve into their own Tyranny (of the Few, Oligarchy) as readily as an Autocracy can devolve into a Tyranny of the One. Remember what was stated earlier, societies are composed of individuals, and people have this wonderful habit of being wildly unpredictable.

Some are honorable, upstanding, just and righteous people. Some are corrupt, wicked, narcissistic manipulators. Most are just trying to mind their own damn business and achieve whatever measure of success in life they define for themselves.

A just society allows these individuals the opportunity to do just that, free from interference, and the necessity of government is arbitrating disputes that arise between people in pursuit of these goals, hence judicial systems being an essential component of Government.

[Herargon]

Communism has never answered to the people. In practice, Communism just leads a dictatorship that supposedly respects it's workers while few live luxuriously, supposedly gives workers control over the means of production while it instead gives those means to the state. The state is not the people, the state should serve to the people, but in Communism attempts the people have always ended up serving the state under threat of disproportionate violence.

Instead of trusting a few people with the government and other few with the means of production, you trust the same with both. And if you get so far where you end up at that spot, you likely aren't exactly the martyr.

And Capitalism doesn't lead a dictatorship? Pah. Don't make me laugh and snicker. If a few billionnaire rapists can decide the fate of a country is to throw it into a reign of terror -- and can do so -- then something is categorically wrong with the institutions.

You appear to forget communism, unlike capitalism, gives control back to the workers, through labour unions, worker-owned cooperations, free from CEOs taking and stealing your wages. Control of means of production means that you together decide what must be done, rather than a CEO with a whip. Capitalists often try to spread lies about how it actually works, because they are afraid that you will discover the truth.
Anarchist communism promises exactly what is necessary: a stateless communist society, without a dictatorship of greed. Go read Kropotkin, if you want.

[Camtropia]

In practice, Communism just leads a dictatorship that supposedly respects it's workers while few live luxuriously, supposedly gives workers control over the means of production while it instead gives those means to the state.

Indeed. And these days most real "socialists" are really the urban elite progressives who read Marx while they drink their lattes. That's a sign the political philosophy has reached its end-stages of popularity, at least in the West.

To be fair, Lenin and many of the other original Russian revolutionaries were part of the educated elite, and they spent a lot of their time drinking coffee in London and arguing about Marx. In a way, less has changed than we sometimes think

[Daemonkin of Corn]

Im talking about democracy lol.

"The state is not the people"

Yet the State is comprised entirely of people. And in a democracy any person can be involved in the State. So in a democracy if the State isnt "the people" what the fuck is it? An alien?

I'm presuming you've never read Aristotle and are unaware that Majority Rule can, and very easily will, devolve into its own form of tyranny, tyranny of the Majority, also known as Mob Rule?

About the only element of Democracy worth salvaging is fair and just representation, of all peoples and social classes, and mind the word "representation" and not "control".

Its why most "democracies" are mislabeled Republics, as the premise behind Republicanism is Common Good, which can be and occasionally is opposed to Majority Rule. A just society benefits its constituent members, often defined solidly by Citizenship, regardless of factors like birth, wealth or the inheritance thereof, social status, etc.

This said a Monarchy is not inherently any less representative of the interests of its citizens than a Republic is, and Republics can just as easily devolve into their own Tyranny (of the Few, Oligarchy) as readily as an Autocracy can devolve into a Tyranny of the One. Remember what was stated earlier, societies are composed of individuals, and people have this wonderful habit of being wildly unpredictable.

Some are honorable, upstanding, just and righteous people. Some are corrupt, wicked, narcissistic manipulators. Most are just trying to mind their own damn business and achieve whatever measure of success in life they define for themselves.

A just society allows these individuals the opportunity to do just that, free from interference, and the necessity of government is arbitrating disputes that arise between people in pursuit of these goals, hence judicial systems being an essential component of Government.

The tyranny of the majority thing would be a problem if we only voted one time for one thing. We don't. The 51% on one issue will not be the same 51% on the other. Thats the beauty of democracy mate. Everyone's interest get represented some of the time. As opposed to a monarchy, where the interests of less than 1% of people are represented 100% of the time.

Also Aristotle? Lmao I've read Aristotle. Here's the thing, I'm not a fucking idiot so I dont hold a 2 thousand year old Greek who wasn't even my favorite or best philosopher of his day hold sway over how I think modern politics should happen. Aristotle can say wrong shit and we can criticize him. He was a philosopher, a guy. And he had contemporaries who agreed with him and ones who disagreed.

Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive. Democracy is just a method for making decisions. A method that on average will lead to results at least as good and probably better than than any oligarchy could hope to while simultaneously being representative of all of its constituent people.

Yes I agree a democracy must include everyone equally. Everyone gets a vote. One vote. No matter who they are or what they have. We dont have that in the US.

[Herargon]

To be fair, Lenin and many of the other original Russian revolutionaries were part of the educated elite, and they spent a lot of their time drinking coffee in London and arguing about Marx. In a way, less has changed than we sometimes think

And Trump somehow isn't the elite? I find that hard to believe.
If anything, Trump has every reason for the worker to rise up against him. The fact that so many of them are brainwashed into thinking you must look down upon someone who earns $10k instead of $100k -- when it ignores the source of all issues, those being that not all have a good home above their head, affordable and decent food and energy. And those issues indeed, come from the fact that the Capitalist says: "Hey! That dirty immigrant worker is stealing all your cookies!", when one earns 2 cookies, the immigrant 1, and the Capitalist gobbles and steals 300 for himself.

Frankly, I want the worker to speak - the worker who realises this tomfoolery - and doesn't fall for the Capitalist's trap.

[Farnworth]

I am indeed poor working class and can say that a majority of us don't buy into the communist BS. I believe the term is "silent majority", and since your side murdered Charlie Kirk more of us have been speaking up and speaking out. But please, by all means, continue to deny reality. It is your right to do in a free society, and while I may not agree with your point of view, I'll stand by your right to make those choices.

'Tis why Conservatives and Capitalists have and always will be the right side

Yup, certainly a bot account. No poor worker falls for the lie of someone who literally said empathy was a weakness, and then got shot by a Republican, y'know, one of the MAGAites.

Charlie Kirk was a domestic terrorist who said kiddos getting shot was fine as long as it meant guns could be kept. I had warned against such wordings, and what does one get with a ton of guns in the hands of a trigger happy populace? More gun violence. If you want to word it correctly, it should be "Charlie Kirk died after promoting violence".

If anyone denies reality, I'm afraid the bot is a bit poorly coded. Capitalism, ultimately, is the ideology that a rapist felon billionnaire oligarch like Trump holds. If you support that, you can do so, but that's not very working class of you. Only through anarchocommunism can the worker be liberated, living in free communes without the terror and poverty that a state brings with itself.

About as deranged and pitiful as any leftist, I see

No, my dude, I work a 9-5, bust my knees to keep my head above water, and I do believe wholeheartedly in Trump, America First, MAGA and that Charlie Kirk was an innocent man killed by the rhetoric of repulsively violent whackos like the ones who've brainwashed you. I'm not mad at you, buddy, but if you believe anything you say you do with any degree of conviction then I pity you.

That's about all I've got to say, though. The golden rule is never argue with stupid people, they'll drag you to their level and beat you with experience

[Farnworth]

I'm presuming you've never read Aristotle and are unaware that Majority Rule can, and very easily will, devolve into its own form of tyranny, tyranny of the Majority, also known as Mob Rule?

About the only element of Democracy worth salvaging is fair and just representation, of all peoples and social classes, and mind the word "representation" and not "control".

Its why most "democracies" are mislabeled Republics, as the premise behind Republicanism is Common Good, which can be and occasionally is opposed to Majority Rule. A just society benefits its constituent members, often defined solidly by Citizenship, regardless of factors like birth, wealth or the inheritance thereof, social status, etc.

This said a Monarchy is not inherently any less representative of the interests of its citizens than a Republic is, and Republics can just as easily devolve into their own Tyranny (of the Few, Oligarchy) as readily as an Autocracy can devolve into a Tyranny of the One. Remember what was stated earlier, societies are composed of individuals, and people have this wonderful habit of being wildly unpredictable.

Some are honorable, upstanding, just and righteous people. Some are corrupt, wicked, narcissistic manipulators. Most are just trying to mind their own damn business and achieve whatever measure of success in life they define for themselves.

A just society allows these individuals the opportunity to do just that, free from interference, and the necessity of government is arbitrating disputes that arise between people in pursuit of these goals, hence judicial systems being an essential component of Government.

The tyranny of the majority thing would be a problem if we only voted one time for one thing. We don't. The 51% on one issue will not be the same 51% on the other. Thats the beauty of democracy mate. Everyone's interest get represented some of the time. As opposed to a monarchy, where the interests of less than 1% of people are represented 100% of the time.

Also Aristotle? Lmao I've read Aristotle. Here's the thing, I'm not a fucking idiot so I dont hold a 2 thousand year old Greek who wasn't even my favorite or best philosopher of his day hold sway over how I think modern politics should happen. Aristotle can say wrong shit and we can criticize him. He was a philosopher, a guy. And he had contemporaries who agreed with him and ones who disagreed.

Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive. Democracy is just a method for making decisions.

Fascinating, but you've lost the plot and my attention. Good day, sir.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

The tyranny of the majority thing would be a problem if we only voted one time for one thing. We don't. The 51% on one issue will not be the same 51% on the other. Thats the beauty of democracy mate. Everyone's interest get represented some of the time. As opposed to a monarchy, where the interests of less than 1% of people are represented 100% of the time.

Also Aristotle? Lmao I've read Aristotle. Here's the thing, I'm not a fucking idiot so I dont hold a 2 thousand year old Greek who wasn't even my favorite or best philosopher of his day hold sway over how I think modern politics should happen. Aristotle can say wrong shit and we can criticize him. He was a philosopher, a guy. And he had contemporaries who agreed with him and ones who disagreed.

Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive. Democracy is just a method for making decisions.

Fascinating, but you've lost the plot and my attention. Good day, sir.

Lol okay right back at you buddy. At this point I've got nothing to say to you that wouldnt get me banned.

[Farnworth]

Fascinating, but you've lost the plot and my attention. Good day, sir.

Lol okay right back at you buddy.

Thank goodness someone knows how to agree to disagree and walk away!

No jokes or sarcasm, it's a breath of fresh air, thank you kindly.