Why do people support capitalism?

[Sackmaris]

Horse and Cart are largely but not exclusively irrelevant in the modern world, these concerns are secondary to the ultimate concern - profit.

Profit is surplus value, it's existence though dynamic is still considered a form of capital stemming from the creative processes of those who labor for a wage but never truly receive or enjoy their full product. Controlling credit ensures that you control who gets to produce and distribute goods or own property, without credit you can't obtain a patent which at the end of the day means you don't possess the means by which to foster or obtain economic independence. Those who enjoy profits do so through monopolies and theft. Things which are generally condemned by state and society alike so long as it concerns the individual.

[Ruszian]

ideologies should be more focused on preserving one's civilization, not materialist concerns. That's my take. Not a big fan of either big C-word ideologies.

Materialist concerns are the only way you preserve your ideology. If your ideology cannot deliver material results to it's people, then it will die.

Don't like C-word ideologies? What about "confucianism"?

Analects 12:9

“If you desire good government, the people must have sufficient food, sufficient arms, and the confidence of the people in their ruler.”

Analects 13:9

“The people will not be loyal if they have no faith in their rulers; and they will not have faith if their rulers have no constancy of principle.”


We have known that a failure by the State to provide a basic standard of living to it's people will result in the justified death of that State for thousands of years. We observe it all the time.

Ideologies that hope to persevere while their ruling class hoards wealth and abuses it's people are coping.

I take it your a fan of The Prince, Kants philosphy, Sima Quan, Han Fei, Sun Tzu and Mencius yet you've never bothered to deep dive into Marxism/Leninism. We don't want a state in the sense a capitalist, autocrat, fascist or monarchist wants a state. Rather we want a dying state that functions only to enforce the will of the workers or a dictatorship of the prolitarian.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

Horse and Cart are largely but not exclusively irrelevant in the modern world, these concerns are secondary to the ultimate concern - profit.

Profit is surplus value, it's existence though dynamic is still considered a form of capital stemming from the creative processes of those who labor for a wage but never truly receive or enjoy their full product. Controlling credit ensures that you control who gets to produce and distribute goods or own property, without credit you can't obtain a patent which at the end of the day means you don't possess the means by which to foster or obtain economic independence. Those who enjoy profits do so through monopolies and theft. Things which are generally condemned by state and society alike so long as it concerns the individual.

When the second Great Depression hits and you can't afford gas you gonna be wishin you had that horse and cart!

[Kinelarty]

As a Semi-capitalist I support capitalism due to the benefits, It's a system which helps the state and increases profit and (my opinion) think it makes the state more powerful and productive. There is a few aspects I don't like which is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Plus the abuse of land and low tax. If we can scratch that it would be okay.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

Materialist concerns are the only way you preserve your ideology. If your ideology cannot deliver material results to it's people, then it will die.

Don't like C-word ideologies? What about "confucianism"?

Analects 12:9

“If you desire good government, the people must have sufficient food, sufficient arms, and the confidence of the people in their ruler.”

Analects 13:9

“The people will not be loyal if they have no faith in their rulers; and they will not have faith if their rulers have no constancy of principle.”


We have known that a failure by the State to provide a basic standard of living to it's people will result in the justified death of that State for thousands of years. We observe it all the time.

Ideologies that hope to persevere while their ruling class hoards wealth and abuses it's people are coping.

I take it your a fan of The Prince, Kants philosphy, Sima Quan, Han Fei, Sun Tzu and Mencius yet you've never bothered to deep dive into Marxism/Leninism. We don't want a state in the sense a capitalist, autocrat, fascist or monarchist wants a state. Rather we want a dying state that functions only to enforce the will of the workers or a dictatorship of the prolitarian.

How much Mencius have you read? He was a sweet person who believed with good reason that humans were fundamentally good.

Machiavelli wrote the Prince as a job application to the Medici family, that isn't his serious ideology. (They didn't appreciate the irony, since they tortured him after it was given to them.) If you want to see what Machiavelli truly thought a just society would look like you should read "The Discourses on Livy" where he advocates for a representative republic.

“Those who condemn the tumults between the nobles and the plebs appear to me to be blaming the very things that were the primary cause of Rome’s liberty.”

“The people are more prudent, more stable, and of better judgment than princes.”

A book he wrote AFTER he wrote "The Prince" BTW!!

I am pretty Marxist myself and have indeed deep dived into those ideologies. Just not in exclusion. I was making a very specific argument around materialism and the purpose of a State and how failing to provide for material needs causes the collapse of the State. Which you should agree with!

[The Lazarene Republic]

As a Semi-capitalist I support capitalism due to the benefits, It's a system which helps the state and increases profit and (my opinion) think it makes the state more powerful and productive. There is a few aspects I don't like which is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Plus the abuse of land and low tax. If we can scratch that it would be okay.

You can't really fix income inequality in the long-term. Also, high taxes and powerful states are bad. It would be better if people kept the full value of their labor so the government wouldn't have to intervene and fix things.

[Thomas Harriot]

As a Semi-capitalist I support capitalism due to the benefits, It's a system which helps the state and increases profit and (my opinion) think it makes the state more powerful and productive. There is a few aspects I don't like which is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Plus the abuse of land and low tax. If we can scratch that it would be okay.

You can't really fix income inequality in the long-term. Also, high taxes and powerful states are bad. It would be better if people kept the full value of their labor so the government wouldn't have to intervene and fix things.

so you mean everything is publicly owned? isn't that anarcho-communism?

[Sackmaris]

Horse and Cart are largely but not exclusively irrelevant in the modern world, these concerns are secondary to the ultimate concern - profit.

Profit is surplus value, it's existence though dynamic is still considered a form of capital stemming from the creative processes of those who labor for a wage but never truly receive or enjoy their full product. Controlling credit ensures that you control who gets to produce and distribute goods or own property, without credit you can't obtain a patent which at the end of the day means you don't possess the means by which to foster or obtain economic independence. Those who enjoy profits do so through monopolies and theft. Things which are generally condemned by state and society alike so long as it concerns the individual.

When the second Great Depression hits and you can't afford gas you gonna be wishin you had that horse and cart!

Still costs money lmfao, I hate this system, btw...social doctrine is pure cope

[Camtropia]

This is a very fine sentiment, but one that glosses over ugly realities. What material needs must be satisfied? I think most people would agree on food and water, but is the quality of the food a necessity? Some will argue that the state has a responsibility to provide good, nutritious food for its citizens, while others will say that that is difficult to implement and the state should stick to guaranteeing basic nutrition. And so on.

Yes, food quality is a necessity. Sufficient nutrition involves not eating horse meat from a dirty slaughter floor.

There's a reason that governments take up the roles they do over time, because necessities become evident with increase to education and, therefore, awareness.

But if you slaughter the horse, how's it going to pull Daemonkin's cart?

[I S T O]

A State that cannot provide for the material needs of it's people ought to, rightly so, be abolished.

And it will be.

This is a very fine sentiment, but one that glosses over ugly realities. What material needs must be satisfied? I think most people would agree on food and water, but is the quality of the food a necessity? Some will argue that the state has a responsibility to provide good, nutritious food for its citizens, while others will say that that is difficult to implement and the state should stick to guaranteeing basic nutrition. And so on.

This is why state can not be the only provider of these things. People have different definitions of quality and nutrition, that's why there needs to be alternate choices

"Muh free market"

[I S T O]

Yes, food quality is a necessity. Sufficient nutrition involves not eating horse meat from a dirty slaughter floor.

There's a reason that governments take up the roles they do over time, because necessities become evident with increase to education and, therefore, awareness.

But if you slaughter the horse, how's it going to pull Daemonkin's cart?

If your killing the horse and I'm feeding the cart then who's flying this plane?

[Daemonkin of Corn]

This is a very fine sentiment, but one that glosses over ugly realities. What material needs must be satisfied? I think most people would agree on food and water, but is the quality of the food a necessity? Some will argue that the state has a responsibility to provide good, nutritious food for its citizens, while others will say that that is difficult to implement and the state should stick to guaranteeing basic nutrition. And so on.

This is why state can not be the only provider of these things. People have different definitions of quality and nutrition, that's why there needs to be alternate choices

"Muh free market"

No one proposed that it should be the only provider.

Just that it must provide an adequate floor.

[The Communist Soviet of India]

I litterly cited Lenin in the thread T^T

Just citing someone does not mean you have understood them. Marxist-Leninists, as they call themselves, do this constantly.

You consider the USSR as socialist, even though any Marxist analysis of it reveals the capitalistic character of its mode of production. Both men would have agreed with the latter assessment. Then there's this sordid attempt of yours to graft religion onto Marxism and communism; let us just take Lenin up on that:

"Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i. e., Marxism. The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion. Let us recall that the whole of Engels’s Anti-Dühring, which Marx read in manuscript, is an indictment of the materialist and atheist Dühring for not being a consistent materialist and for leaving loopholes for religion and religious philosophy. Let us recall that in his essay on Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels reproaches Feuerbach for combating religion not in order to destroy it, but in order to renovate it, to invent a new, “exalted” religion, and so forth. Religion is the opium of the people—this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion. Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organisation, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class."

Keep in mind this being written before the modern conception of social democracy had arisen.

I litterly cited Lenin in the thread T^T

Just citing someone does not mean you have understood them. Marxist-Leninists, as they call themselves, do this constantly.

You consider the USSR as socialist, even though any Marxist analysis of it reveals the capitalistic character of its mode of production. Both men would have agreed with the latter assessment. Then there's this sordid attempt of yours to graft religion onto Marxism and communism; let us just take Lenin up on that:

"Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i. e., Marxism. The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion. Let us recall that the whole of Engels’s Anti-Dühring, which Marx read in manuscript, is an indictment of the materialist and atheist Dühring for not being a consistent materialist and for leaving loopholes for religion and religious philosophy. Let us recall that in his essay on Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels reproaches Feuerbach for combating religion not in order to destroy it, but in order to renovate it, to invent a new, “exalted” religion, and so forth. Religion is the opium of the people—this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion. Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organisation, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class."

Keep in mind this being written before the modern conception of social democracy had arisen.

this is a lingual semantic game

being socialist has had like multiple different definitions[production, social, vanguard], I am aware the USSR was still primary state-capitalist [at most, it's also valid to call Stalin's USSR Socialist if we really wanted to if we take quote a] in production, however to be a socialist state/ the colloquial term of socialist just need to have a communist party in power, for example, we can claim China as AES despite their liberalization in market economics.

You claim the USSR not not be socialist for PURLY Semantical Reasons that do not take in the nuanced definition that Lenin had put in place, Lenin had declared that despite even under State-Capitalism, the USSR would have the right to declare itself Socialist

"State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country."

"We must deal with this point in greater detail.

Firstly, we must examine the nature of the transition from capitalism to socialism that gives us the right and the grounds to call our country a Socialist Republic of Soviets.

Secondly, we must expose the error of those who fail to see the petty-bourgeois economic conditions and the petty-bourgeois element as the principal enemy of socialism in our country."

but I would like to go back to the larger topic

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

ideologies should be more focused on preserving one's civilization, not materialist concerns. That's my take. Not a big fan of either big C-word ideologies.

"Civilisation" in the sense that is clearly meant here - traditional values, customs, the parochial rituals that distinguish each nation from the others - is not real civilisation. Its abolishment is a necessary part of human progress and to "[preserve] one's civilisation" is to engage in an act of willful moral evil.

No art, no church, no history, no patriotism will ever dignify a human being the way that being able to lift their head from one's daily struggle for subsistence does.

[The Bordirigist Republic]

I take it your a fan of The Prince, Kants philosphy, Sima Quan, Han Fei, Sun Tzu and Mencius yet you've never bothered to deep dive into Marxism/Leninism. We don't want a state in the sense a capitalist, autocrat, fascist or monarchist wants a state. Rather we want a dying state that functions only to enforce the will of the workers or a dictatorship of the prolitarian.

Not true. Marxism-Leninism only resulted today in six bureaucratic despostates, with one state even functioning similarly to a fusion of a monarchy and a fascist republic.

[The Bordirigist Republic]

"Civilisation" in the sense that is clearly meant here - traditional values, customs, the parochial rituals that distinguish each nation from the others - is not real civilisation. Its abolishment is a necessary part of human progress and to "[preserve] one's civilisation" is to engage in an act of willful moral evil.

No art, no church, no history, no patriotism will ever dignify a human being the way that being able to lift their head from one's daily struggle for subsistence does.

No. Art and history are an integral part of humanity. Humans would be descending into pure anarchy if civilization became nonexistent.

[Unogonduria]

ideologies should be more focused on preserving one's civilization, not materialist concerns. That's my take. Not a big fan of either big C-word ideologies.

Interesting perspective.

[Holmkerk]

ideologies should be more focused on preserving one's civilization, not materialist concerns. That's my take. Not a big fan of either big C-word ideologies.

Interesting perspective.

Seeing as in the West, material concerns are pretty much fulfilled (there are still issues with housing, and with healthcare and addiction, but no one is dying of hunger anymore), We should concern ourselves on the three other pillars of civilization: Identity, Social Cohesion and Defence. The Nation being the most developed form of societal structure, and the Family being the strongest one, the brick of all civilizations, I believe that the question of Identity is solved through national identity, which is mostly cultural, but has important linguistic, ethnic, and religious components. Social Cohesion is achieved thanks to an ordered hierarchy, where everyone has their place, and the preservation of the family structure, which is instrumental for any functioning society. Religious morality allows this hierarchical system to work more or less harmonically, and tradition allows the system to continue for the next generations. Defence is relatively self-explanatory, with the Army as a major institution, strict border control, and cooperation with Nations from the same greater Civilization (e.g., systems like NATO and the EU when they don't serve the interests of a single member or technocrats and foreign businessmen)

Obviously with urbanisation and the industrial and technological revolutions, traditions and identities must adapt to survive, but they shouldn't be got rid of. To preserve the system, it sometimes has to change, but the Spirit behind them must remain the same. The old-fashioned, rural form of reactionism cannot be replicated as is nowadays.

[The Bordirigist Republic]

Seeing as in the West, material concerns are pretty much fulfilled (there are still issues with housing, and with healthcare and addiction, but no one is dying of hunger anymore), We should concern ourselves on the three other pillars of civilization: Identity, Social Cohesion and Defence. The Nation being the most developed form of societal structure, and the Family being the strongest one, the brick of all civilizations, I believe that the question of Identity is solved through national identity, which is mostly cultural, but has important linguistic, ethnic, and religious components. Social Cohesion is achieved thanks to an ordered hierarchy, where everyone has their place, and the preservation of the family structure, which is instrumental for any functioning society. Religious morality allows this hierarchical system to work more or less harmonically, and tradition allows the system to continue for the next generations. Defence is relatively self-explanatory, with the Army as a major institution, strict border control, and cooperation with Nations from the same greater Civilization (e.g., systems like NATO and the EU when they don't serve the interests of a single member or technocrats and foreign businessmen)

Obviously with urbanisation and the industrial and technological revolutions, traditions and identities must adapt to survive, but they shouldn't be got rid of. To preserve the system, it sometimes has to change, but the Spirit behind them must remain the same. The old-fashioned, rural form of reactionism cannot be replicated as is nowadays.

The modern societal hierarchies, both the typical post-Abrahamic capitalist social status and Indian casteism, already stalled change since stagnation of society would benefit both the technocrats and traditionalists (these two groups of people sometimes intersect).

[Daemonkin of Corn]

Interesting perspective.

Seeing as in the West, material concerns are pretty much fulfilled (there are still issues with housing, and with healthcare and addiction, but no one is dying of hunger anymore), We should concern ourselves on the three other pillars of civilization: Identity, Social Cohesion and Defence. The Nation being the most developed form of societal structure, and the Family being the strongest one, the brick of all civilizations, I believe that the question of Identity is solved through national identity, which is mostly cultural, but has important linguistic, ethnic, and religious components. Social Cohesion is achieved thanks to an ordered hierarchy, where everyone has their place, and the preservation of the family structure, which is instrumental for any functioning society. Religious morality allows this hierarchical system to work more or less harmonically, and tradition allows the system to continue for the next generations. Defence is relatively self-explanatory, with the Army as a major institution, strict border control, and cooperation with Nations from the same greater Civilization (e.g., systems like NATO and the EU when they don't serve the interests of a single member or technocrats and foreign businessmen)

Obviously with urbanisation and the industrial and technological revolutions, traditions and identities must adapt to survive, but they shouldn't be got rid of. To preserve the system, it sometimes has to change, but the Spirit behind them must remain the same. The old-fashioned, rural form of reactionism cannot be replicated as is nowadays.

All of this is justification for serfdom and slavery. Things you no doubt take no issue with, as long as everyone is "in their place" (their place of course defined according to the interests of the oligarchs and the "God" they invented.)

I see the one putting the cart before the horse is in fact you.
I already knew you would post something like this.

Im just glad you stated it out loud.

[Magna-Parva]

Interesting perspective.

Seeing as in the West, material concerns are pretty much fulfilled (there are still issues with housing, and with healthcare and addiction, but no one is dying of hunger anymore), We should concern ourselves on the three other pillars of civilization: Identity, Social Cohesion and Defence. The Nation being the most developed form of societal structure, and the Family being the strongest one, the brick of all civilizations, I believe that the question of Identity is solved through national identity, which is mostly cultural, but has important linguistic, ethnic, and religious components. Social Cohesion is achieved thanks to an ordered hierarchy, where everyone has their place, and the preservation of the family structure, which is instrumental for any functioning society. Religious morality allows this hierarchical system to work more or less harmonically, and tradition allows the system to continue for the next generations. Defence is relatively self-explanatory, with the Army as a major institution, strict border control, and cooperation with Nations from the same greater Civilization (e.g., systems like NATO and the EU when they don't serve the interests of a single member or technocrats and foreign businessmen)

Obviously with urbanisation and the industrial and technological revolutions, traditions and identities must adapt to survive, but they shouldn't be got rid of. To preserve the system, it sometimes has to change, but the Spirit behind them must remain the same. The old-fashioned, rural form of reactionism cannot be replicated as is nowadays.

A place for everyone and everyone in their place?

[Daemonkin of Corn]

Seeing as in the West, material concerns are pretty much fulfilled (there are still issues with housing, and with healthcare and addiction, but no one is dying of hunger anymore), We should concern ourselves on the three other pillars of civilization: Identity, Social Cohesion and Defence. The Nation being the most developed form of societal structure, and the Family being the strongest one, the brick of all civilizations, I believe that the question of Identity is solved through national identity, which is mostly cultural, but has important linguistic, ethnic, and religious components. Social Cohesion is achieved thanks to an ordered hierarchy, where everyone has their place, and the preservation of the family structure, which is instrumental for any functioning society. Religious morality allows this hierarchical system to work more or less harmonically, and tradition allows the system to continue for the next generations. Defence is relatively self-explanatory, with the Army as a major institution, strict border control, and cooperation with Nations from the same greater Civilization (e.g., systems like NATO and the EU when they don't serve the interests of a single member or technocrats and foreign businessmen)

Obviously with urbanisation and the industrial and technological revolutions, traditions and identities must adapt to survive, but they shouldn't be got rid of. To preserve the system, it sometimes has to change, but the Spirit behind them must remain the same. The old-fashioned, rural form of reactionism cannot be replicated as is nowadays.

A place for everyone and everyone in their place?

He just wants to be a happy slave.

[States of Arenenge]

Better in practice than in theory.

[Thomas Harriot]

Better in practice than in theory.

no, capitalism is works in neither

[Garamantia]

How do you oppose something without clear, workable alternatives? Communism, feudalism, slavery (fascism), all other economic systems that have been attempted have spectacularly collapsed in on themselves in some way.

Maybe if anarcho-communism wasn't so easily overrun by statist forces, we would be discussing some viable alternatives to capitalism. As it stands? There is no alternative.