Why do people support capitalism?

[Humanlonia]

Why do people are not part of the bourgeoisie support capitalism? It kills 20 million people a year, and is an inherently bad system. At the very, very, very least, it should be reformed. It’s better than feudalism, but it does not lift people out of poverty. It - at least in my opinion - does nothing that helps the proletariat. It also incentivises profit over anything else, and therefore under capitalism, hunger is not a bug, but a feature.

Read Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

They don't like this book because it doesn't approve of the robberies of the bourgeoisie.

[Humanlonia]

Read Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

That isn't an argument.

Economics is not an argument in the discussion of capitalism. *Writes down*

[Untecna]

That isn't an argument.

Economics is not an argument in the discussion of capitalism. *Writes down*

Saying "read this book" isn't an argument.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

Read Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

They don't like this book because it doesn't approve of the robberies of the bourgeoisie.

I've read it. So what?

I actually quite like Henry Hazlitt. He is witty and entertaining to read. However there are some still very critical critiques of how capitalism works in the real world that's gotta be addressed.

[Inner Pani Grez]

they are. le stupid. in all seriousness, most people dont really think abt the alternitives to things like that. average person is. very politicly unaware.

(i would say something abt how its kind of funny how many broad-reaching questions like this end up on nationstates, but ive accepted it by now.)

[Humanlonia]

They don't like this book because it doesn't approve of the robberies of the bourgeoisie.

I've read it. So what?

I actually quite like Henry Hazlitt. He is witty and entertaining to read. However there are some still very critical critiques of how capitalism works in the real world that's gotta be addressed.

You're supposed to understand that the market is an inevitable evil as long as there's a shortage of goods. It's not that easy to reform.

[Humanlonia]

they are. le stupid. in all seriousness, most people dont really think abt the alternitives to things like that. average person is. very politicly unaware.

(i would say something abt how its kind of funny how many broad-reaching questions like this end up on nationstates, but ive accepted it by now.)

It's just that the best minds in the world sit here and answer any of your questions at the first call.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

I've read it. So what?

I actually quite like Henry Hazlitt. He is witty and entertaining to read. However there are some still very critical critiques of how capitalism works in the real world that's gotta be addressed.

You're supposed to understand that the market is an inevitable evil as long as there's a shortage of goods. It's not that easy to reform.

Being anti-capitalist is not being anti-market. There are markets in every system. The debate is around the nature of the market, the accumulation of certain resources, and how to allocate public goods. It's about the treatment and rights of workers, the ownership of capital (capital being resources used to manufacture goods and process commodities) and the balances of power.

The biggest enemy of capitalism is the capitalist. Not the socialist. It is the capitalist that creates an excessive imbalance between the rich and poor. It's the capitalist that captures the power of the State to protect their firm. It's the capitalist that turns essential resources of the community such as water into private commodities for them to distribute for profit.

Anti-capitalist revolution is a response to the excesses of the capitalist class. If all Marxist writings and socialist writings disappeared today, it would not end the possibility of revolution. Those forces would still be present.

You can have a system that provides universal healthcare, a minimum standard of food and water access, public electricity and gas. That provides for it's common resources and provides public goods. While having businesses that are held fairly accountable for their negative externalities and stay out of the business of resources that are essential for the communities security.

But the capitalist isn't interested in that. The Capitalist has no real ideological commitment to capitalism. So they become threats to their own market. They become robber barons, monopolists, slum lords, and cartels. They send lobbyists to the government to bend it toward their own ends. Rather than let their businesses collapse naturally they rig the game to stay on top indefinitely. Rather than let competition thrive they get the State to intervene on their behalf. Rather than negotiate fairly with their workers they shoot them, beat them, and spy on them.

Hazlitt and Hayek are competent economists. But incompetent in the realm of sociology and history.


There is no evidence of a shortage of goods. None whatsoever. The shortage is manufactured by the excesses of the top 1%. We see evidence of this every single day.

This is something that needs to be dealt with. We can do it the "easy way" (create laws that break up monopolies and cartels, reduce wealth inequality, and enhance public infrastructure and goods) or the hard way (violence).

[Nilokeras]

if anything, their dangerous reactionary tendencies as a class came about from the ways that they sought 'legitimate' or legal means to sustain themselves or improve their lot: as scabs breaking strikes, or seeking out the patronage of reactionary politicians like Louis-Napoleon.

Honestly obtaining easy means to live by having loyalty first and foremost more than various qualifications seems very appealing to me. I absolutely hate working and at least "join the Squadrismo and do some violence and that's your job" seems more attractive to lumpenproletariat than Arbeit macht frei kind of fascism. Or maybe it could be about creating jobs for lumpenproletariat so then it's something different.

kindly take your uwu Saiwana shtick elsewhere.

[Humanlonia]

You're supposed to understand that the market is an inevitable evil as long as there's a shortage of goods. It's not that easy to reform.

Being anti-capitalist is not being anti-market. There are markets in every system. The debate is around the nature of the market, the accumulation of certain resources, and how to allocate public goods. It's about the treatment and rights of workers, the ownership of capital (capital being resources used to manufacture goods and process commodities) and the balances of power.

The biggest enemy of capitalism is the capitalist. Not the socialist. It is the capitalist that creates an excessive imbalance between the rich and poor. It's the capitalist that captures the power of the State to protect their firm. It's the capitalist that turns essential resources of the community such as water into private commodities for them to distribute for profit.

Anti-capitalist revolution is a response to the excesses of the capitalist class. If all Marxist writings and socialist writings disappeared today, it would not end the possibility of revolution. Those forces would still be present.

You can have a system that provides universal healthcare, a minimum standard of food and water access, public electricity and gas. That provides for it's common resources and provides public goods. While having businesses that are held fairly accountable for their negative externalities and stay out of the business of resources that are essential for the communities security.

But the capitalist isn't interested in that. The Capitalist has no real ideological commitment to capitalism. So they become threats to their own market. They become robber barons, monopolists, slum lords, and cartels. They send lobbyists to the government to bend it toward their own ends. Rather than let their businesses collapse naturally they rig the game to stay on top indefinitely. Rather than let competition thrive they get the State to intervene on their behalf. Rather than negotiate fairly with their workers they shoot them, beat them, and spy on them.

Hazlitt and Hayek are competent economists. But incompetent in the realm of sociology and history.


There is no evidence of a shortage of goods. None whatsoever. The shortage is manufactured by the excesses of the top 1%. We see evidence of this every single day.

This is something that needs to be dealt with. We can do it the "easy way" (create laws that break up monopolies and cartels, reduce wealth inequality, and enhance public infrastructure and goods) or the hard way (violence).

You criticize the lack of government support and antitrust measures more than capitalism itself. Our positions on this issue are identical, and if we were citizens of the same country, I'm sure we'd vote for the same people and support the same trade unions.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

Being anti-capitalist is not being anti-market. There are markets in every system. The debate is around the nature of the market, the accumulation of certain resources, and how to allocate public goods. It's about the treatment and rights of workers, the ownership of capital (capital being resources used to manufacture goods and process commodities) and the balances of power.

The biggest enemy of capitalism is the capitalist. Not the socialist. It is the capitalist that creates an excessive imbalance between the rich and poor. It's the capitalist that captures the power of the State to protect their firm. It's the capitalist that turns essential resources of the community such as water into private commodities for them to distribute for profit.

Anti-capitalist revolution is a response to the excesses of the capitalist class. If all Marxist writings and socialist writings disappeared today, it would not end the possibility of revolution. Those forces would still be present.

You can have a system that provides universal healthcare, a minimum standard of food and water access, public electricity and gas. That provides for it's common resources and provides public goods. While having businesses that are held fairly accountable for their negative externalities and stay out of the business of resources that are essential for the communities security.

But the capitalist isn't interested in that. The Capitalist has no real ideological commitment to capitalism. So they become threats to their own market. They become robber barons, monopolists, slum lords, and cartels. They send lobbyists to the government to bend it toward their own ends. Rather than let their businesses collapse naturally they rig the game to stay on top indefinitely. Rather than let competition thrive they get the State to intervene on their behalf. Rather than negotiate fairly with their workers they shoot them, beat them, and spy on them.

Hazlitt and Hayek are competent economists. But incompetent in the realm of sociology and history.


There is no evidence of a shortage of goods. None whatsoever. The shortage is manufactured by the excesses of the top 1%. We see evidence of this every single day.

This is something that needs to be dealt with. We can do it the "easy way" (create laws that break up monopolies and cartels, reduce wealth inequality, and enhance public infrastructure and goods) or the hard way (violence).

You criticize the lack of government support and antitrust measures more than capitalism itself. Our positions on this issue are identical, and if we were citizens of the same country, I'm sure we'd vote for the same people and support the same trade unions.

You are probably right. Thats because we have common interests. However.

The capitalists created the situation. They bought the cards and stacked the deck. Now the game is broken.

And now we will make little repairs, have another little new deal or something after this Ai bubble pops... And do it all over again later.

One day we aren't going to be able to come back after the collapse. And there will need to be something new.

[Humanlonia]

You criticize the lack of government support and antitrust measures more than capitalism itself. Our positions on this issue are identical, and if we were citizens of the same country, I'm sure we'd vote for the same people and support the same trade unions.

You are probably right. Thats because we have common interests. However.

The capitalists created the situation. They bought the cards and stacked the deck. Now the game is broken.

And now we will make little repairs, have another little new deal or something after this Ai bubble pops... And do it all over again later.

One day we aren't going to be able to come back after the collapse. And there will need to be something new.

The problem lies in human nature and the institutions we've built. I think the house of cards is already collapsing, and if we can't stop it now (or better yet, yesterday), we'll end up in mass extinction. Reforms to the international order have already been proposed, for example, the Earth Federation project, population limits, even the UN development goals, which no one intends to meet. It's just that most people aren't interested in changing anything; they just want to pay off their loans and get rid of migrants or any other red herrings. Some have no influence at all, because elections are either not held or are a sham.As the environmental situation worsens, quality of life will decline everywhere, and in times like these, people will look for simple solutions, like taking private property from the rich or waging war against the "judobanderas." They really do say that, by the way.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

You are probably right. Thats because we have common interests. However.

The capitalists created the situation. They bought the cards and stacked the deck. Now the game is broken.

And now we will make little repairs, have another little new deal or something after this Ai bubble pops... And do it all over again later.

One day we aren't going to be able to come back after the collapse. And there will need to be something new.

The problem lies in human nature and the institutions we've built. I think the house of cards is already collapsing, and if we can't stop it now (or better yet, yesterday), we'll end up in mass extinction. Reforms to the international order have already been proposed, for example, the Earth Federation project, population limits, even the UN development goals, which no one intends to meet. It's just that most people aren't interested in changing anything; they just want to pay off their loans and get rid of migrants or any other red herrings. Some have no influence at all, because elections are either not held or are a sham.As the environmental situation worsens, quality of life will decline everywhere, and in times like these, people will look for simple solutions, like taking private property from the rich or waging war against the "judobanderas." They really do say that, by the way.

I agree until the last part.

Revolution is not a "simple solution."

It is a consequence. It is the find out after the fuck around. The "solution" is what comes after the revolution. It is the struggle. And there never was and will never be anything simple about the struggle. But struggle we must. There is no other choice.

[The Lazarene Republic]

Why do people are not part of the bourgeoisie support capitalism? It kills 20 million people a year, and is an inherently bad system. At the very, very, very least, it should be reformed. It’s better than feudalism, but it does not lift people out of poverty. It - at least in my opinion - does nothing that helps the proletariat. It also incentivises profit over anything else, and therefore under capitalism, hunger is not a bug, but a feature.

Read Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

Seems to be anti-Keynesianism for the most part, with a brief argument for capitalism itself (pg. 144) on the basis that it's the most profitable system, and a couple of snipes at overproduction theory. Two responses:

1. The first is rather simple: greed is bad and profiteering is usury. According to the prophets and philosophers, mammonism is sin and chresmatistics is vice. An economy based on the accumulation of capital for its own sake leads to anomie and decadence. Which may not be convincing if you're an atheist/immoralist, but in my opinion, Christian ethics are not some kind of arcane nonsense like alchemy and witch trials (which were really the fault of the Renaissance and Reformation, but I digress). People are increasingly atomized and purposeless, and you have to wonder what's going to happen to society when the last remnants of social glue are chipped away by a system that thrives on the worst parts of the human psyche.

2. The second is not as obvious, but the profit motive can be a barrier to wealth. Let's go over a hypothetical:

Imagine there's a widget factory owner, and your widget makers are the main consumers of widgets (which they eat, drink, and live in, for maximal oversimplification), then increasing their wages so they can buy more widgets or purchasing all of the widgets for yourself is going to have a different effect than reinvesting the same amount in widget production. One will realize the value of the widgets and generate profit for the company, whereas the other will depress the price of widgets by creating a supply glut. You may then need to destroy some of the widgets so you can sell the rest at a profitable price, or ensure that widgets break quickly so that people have to replace them frequently. One reason you could end up doing this is that you don't want any more widgets, but another might be that a rival widget factory is investing in more efficient machines to sell better, cheaper widgets, which would make your widgets worthless. So both you and the other factory have spent a ton of money just to compete with each other, and now the widget market is unprofitable (not to mention, more expensive to enter for new factories) unless you raise prices, cut wages/jobs, or automate even more. Or maybe the factory can offset costs by making the workplace less safe and the environment less habitable. The government will step in to subsidize the widget market, and use welfare to cover up unemployment and low pay, but that money's eventually gonna come out of wages and profits, whether in the form of taxation or inflation. No matter how advanced the factory becomes, these problems are going to keep coming back, temporary solutions notwithstanding.

The tragedy is that, if all the widget makers were working to meet their own needs and not to maximize profits for someone else, this would be solvable. They'd have the freedom to set the terms of their own work instead of being beholden to someone who has been possessed by an idol. Because what is money if not graven images infused with some ethereal power? This was very literally the case in ancient times, and it's only gotten worse in the present day.

[Humanlonia]

Read Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

Seems to be anti-Keynesianism for the most part, with a brief argument for capitalism itself (pg. 144) on the basis that it's the most profitable system, and a couple of snipes at overproduction theory. Two responses:

1. The first is rather simple: greed is bad and profiteering is usury. According to the prophets and philosophers, mammonism is sin and chresmatistics is vice. An economy based on the accumulation of capital for its own sake leads to anomie and decadence. Which may not be convincing if you're an atheist/immoralist, but in my opinion, Christian ethics are not some kind of arcane nonsense like alchemy and witch trials (which were really the fault of the Renaissance and Reformation, but I digress). People are increasingly atomized and purposeless, and you have to wonder what's going to happen to society when the last remnants of social glue are chipped away by a system that thrives on the worst parts of the human psyche.

2. The second is not as obvious, but the profit motive can be a barrier to wealth. Let's go over a hypothetical:

Imagine there's a widget factory owner, and your widget makers are the main consumers of widgets (which they eat, drink, and live in, for maximal oversimplification), then increasing their wages so they can buy more widgets or purchasing all of the widgets for yourself is going to have a different effect than reinvesting the same amount in widget production. One will realize the value of the widgets and generate profit for the company, whereas the other will depress the price of widgets by creating a supply glut. You may then need to destroy some of the widgets so you can sell the rest at a profitable price, or ensure that widgets break quickly so that people have to replace them frequently. One reason you could end up doing this is that you don't want any more widgets, but another might be that a rival widget factory is investing in more efficient machines to sell better, cheaper widgets, which would make your widgets worthless. So both you and the other factory have spent a ton of money just to compete with each other, and now the widget market is unprofitable (not to mention, more expensive to enter for new factories) unless you raise prices, cut wages/jobs, or automate even more. Or maybe the factory can offset costs by making the workplace less safe and the environment less habitable. The government will step in to subsidize the widget market, and use welfare to cover up unemployment and low pay, but that money's eventually gonna come out of wages and profits, whether in the form of taxation or inflation. No matter how advanced the factory becomes, these problems are going to keep coming back, temporary solutions notwithstanding.

The tragedy is that, if all the widget makers were working to meet their own needs and not to maximize profits for someone else, this would be solvable. They'd have the freedom to set the terms of their own work instead of being beholden to someone who has been possessed by an idol. Because what is money if not graven images infused with some ethereal power? This was very literally the case in ancient times, and it's only gotten worse in the present day.

I also like the ideas of responsible consumption and sustainable growth. However, these ideas seem to be slow to reach corporations, if they reach them at all.

[Owonyaania]

As the environmental situation worsens, quality of life will decline everywhere, and in times like these, people will look for simple solutions, like taking private property from the rich or waging war against the "judobanderas." They really do say that, by the way.

I don't know when that environmental situation will actually worsen. For me it's still perfectly fine. And it sounds too fanficky with taking private property from the rich.

kindly take your uwu Saiwana shtick elsewhere.

I wonder what actually makes you want to respond to me regularly. Maybe it's a form of politeness from you that you want to respond to people who responded to you? But still nationstates is a perfect place for that shtick and what I wrote still shares my thoughts that there are people that would prefer to have qualifications judged by loyalty over competence. I think there is a sizable group of people who imagine that if their representatives came to power they would specifically make their lifes much better and easier, like white people helping out white people kind of thing. If fascists can offer modern lumpenproletariat functional narrative they have advantage over communists like you.

[Humanlonia]

As the environmental situation worsens, quality of life will decline everywhere, and in times like these, people will look for simple solutions, like taking private property from the rich or waging war against the "judobanderas." They really do say that, by the way.

I don't know when that environmental situation will actually worsen. For me it's still perfectly fine. And it sounds too fanficky with taking private property from the rich.

kindly take your uwu Saiwana shtick elsewhere.

I wonder what actually makes you want to respond to me regularly. Maybe it's a form of politeness from you that you want to respond to people who responded to you? But still nationstates is a perfect place for that shtick and what I wrote still shares my thoughts that there are people that would prefer to have qualifications judged by loyalty over competence. I think there is a sizable group of people who imagine that if their representatives came to power they would specifically make their lifes much better and easier, like white people helping out white people kind of thing. If fascists can offer modern lumpenproletariat functional narrative they have advantage over communists like you.

I'm glad you're still enjoying a favorable environmental situation. I live in one of the most polluted cities in the world. And even in my own country, they're seizing property from the rich, those undesirable to the regime, as well as foreign companies. And all this is happening to the cheers of a frenzied crowd. Incidentally, you can become undesirable to the regime simply because you own property that a "respected person" likes.

[Owonyaania]

I'm glad you're still enjoying a favorable environmental situation. I live in one of the most polluted cities in the world. And even in my own country, they're seizing property from the rich, those undesirable to the regime, as well as foreign companies. And all this is happening to the cheers of a frenzied crowd. Incidentally, you can become undesirable to the regime simply because you own property that a "respected person" likes.

I think that a majority of people always had an undesirable situation on Earth. I'm not sure if it can be attributed to anything environmental. You mention problems with the regime and it sounds more like a problem with that. But you know your situation best and I can only say that I doubt I will struggle with anything environmental during my lifetime. But it absolutely might be a problem in other parts of the world like where you live. But then my country can't do anything by itself anyway because its contribution to global situation is a small fraction of everything.

[Humanlonia]

I'm glad you're still enjoying a favorable environmental situation. I live in one of the most polluted cities in the world. And even in my own country, they're seizing property from the rich, those undesirable to the regime, as well as foreign companies. And all this is happening to the cheers of a frenzied crowd. Incidentally, you can become undesirable to the regime simply because you own property that a "respected person" likes.

I think that a majority of people always had an undesirable situation on Earth. I'm not sure if it can be attributed to anything environmental. You mention problems with the regime and it sounds more like a problem with that. But you know your situation best and I can only say that I doubt I will struggle with anything environmental during my lifetime. But it absolutely might be a problem in other parts of the world like where you live. But then my country can't do anything by itself anyway because its contribution to global situation is a small fraction of everything.

Yes, if we look on all world history our age is very nice. I don't think this will last long and attribute it to environmental issues and authoritarianism, which are self-perpetuating factors. I once saw a German book about forecasts for the future up to 2050, and it described some rather interesting utopian predictions and, what's truly interesting, the reasons why they might not come true. Among them were China's retreat from liberalization policies and the seizure of power by a Mao-like ruler, the takeover of the Russian government by a gang of bandits closely connected to business, the US's retreat into isolationism, a global epidemic like the Spanish flu, the rise of terrorism, which provokes states to curtail democratic freedoms, environmental problems, and the lesser effect of technological progress than those optimists described. Sounds like a combo.

[I S T O]

I can't answer that question,I doubt many can. I bet even fewer agree on said definition

Why should we be arbiters (wort wort) of what culture is valid and what is not, can we really say we know the intentions of why art or media was made? Even if something was made for profit, how does that detract from others finding enjoyment of said product and cementing it in the cultural zitegist.

I have a question for you,what do you consider inauthentic culture

Im asking for your subjective opinion.

I think you are perfectly capable of identifying inauthenticity.

Authentic culture springs from one's needs. One's self-actualization. One's desire to create, find community, explore and seek joy.

Why does my subjective opinion matter? My opinion shouldn't dictate what is or isn't culture

When someone is being insincere, inauthentic, or manipulative for cynical purposes and profit it comes through.

Now we can sometimes create authentic joy around that inauthenticity. We do after all control our reactions to them. But there is certainly a limit, and some people have more tolerance for bullshit than others.

You can’t say that everything created for profit is automatically inauthentic. A studio executive might want a show made to earn money, while the writers working on it might be motivated by the ideas they want to explore. Does that really make the show “inauthentic” just because its original purpose involves profit?

Every true Marxist knows that Marx and Engels explored each others bodies.

did you really need to say this?

Don't be scared of the truth

You're supposed to understand that the market is an inevitable evil as long as there's a shortage of goods. It's not that easy to reform.

Being anti-capitalist is not being anti-market. There are markets in every system. The debate is around the nature of the market, the accumulation of certain resources, and how to allocate public goods. It's about the treatment and rights of workers, the ownership of capital (capital being resources used to manufacture goods and process commodities) and the balances of power.

The biggest enemy of capitalism is the capitalist. Not the socialist. It is the capitalist that creates an excessive imbalance between the rich and poor. It's the capitalist that captures the power of the State to protect their firm. It's the capitalist that turns essential resources of the community such as water into private commodities for them to distribute for profit.

Anti-capitalist revolution is a response to the excesses of the capitalist class. If all Marxist writings and socialist writings disappeared today, it would not end the possibility of revolution. Those forces would still be present.

You can have a system that provides universal healthcare, a minimum standard of food and water access, public electricity and gas. That provides for it's common resources and provides public goods. While having businesses that are held fairly accountable for their negative externalities and stay out of the business of resources that are essential for the communities security.

But the capitalist isn't interested in that. The Capitalist has no real ideological commitment to capitalism. So they become threats to their own market. They become robber barons, monopolists, slum lords, and cartels. They send lobbyists to the government to bend it toward their own ends. Rather than let their businesses collapse naturally they rig the game to stay on top indefinitely. Rather than let competition thrive they get the State to intervene on their behalf. Rather than negotiate fairly with their workers they shoot them, beat them, and spy on them.

Hazlitt and Hayek are competent economists. But incompetent in the realm of sociology and history.


There is no evidence of a shortage of goods. None whatsoever. The shortage is manufactured by the excesses of the top 1%. We see evidence of this every single day.

This is something that needs to be dealt with. We can do it the "easy way" (create laws that break up monopolies and cartels, reduce wealth inequality, and enhance public infrastructure and goods) or the hard way (violence).

There isn't a shortage of goods? How do you know that?

[Daemonkin of Corn]

Im asking for your subjective opinion.

I think you are perfectly capable of identifying inauthenticity.

Authentic culture springs from one's needs. One's self-actualization. One's desire to create, find community, explore and seek joy.

Why does my subjective opinion matter? My opinion shouldn't dictate what is or isn't culture

When someone is being insincere, inauthentic, or manipulative for cynical purposes and profit it comes through.

Now we can sometimes create authentic joy around that inauthenticity. We do after all control our reactions to them. But there is certainly a limit, and some people have more tolerance for bullshit than others.

You can’t say that everything created for profit is automatically inauthentic. A studio executive might want a show made to earn money, while the writers working on it might be motivated by the ideas they want to explore. Does that really make the show “inauthentic” just because its original purpose involves profit?

did you really need to say this?

Don't be scared of the truth

Being anti-capitalist is not being anti-market. There are markets in every system. The debate is around the nature of the market, the accumulation of certain resources, and how to allocate public goods. It's about the treatment and rights of workers, the ownership of capital (capital being resources used to manufacture goods and process commodities) and the balances of power.

The biggest enemy of capitalism is the capitalist. Not the socialist. It is the capitalist that creates an excessive imbalance between the rich and poor. It's the capitalist that captures the power of the State to protect their firm. It's the capitalist that turns essential resources of the community such as water into private commodities for them to distribute for profit.

Anti-capitalist revolution is a response to the excesses of the capitalist class. If all Marxist writings and socialist writings disappeared today, it would not end the possibility of revolution. Those forces would still be present.

You can have a system that provides universal healthcare, a minimum standard of food and water access, public electricity and gas. That provides for it's common resources and provides public goods. While having businesses that are held fairly accountable for their negative externalities and stay out of the business of resources that are essential for the communities security.

But the capitalist isn't interested in that. The Capitalist has no real ideological commitment to capitalism. So they become threats to their own market. They become robber barons, monopolists, slum lords, and cartels. They send lobbyists to the government to bend it toward their own ends. Rather than let their businesses collapse naturally they rig the game to stay on top indefinitely. Rather than let competition thrive they get the State to intervene on their behalf. Rather than negotiate fairly with their workers they shoot them, beat them, and spy on them.

Hazlitt and Hayek are competent economists. But incompetent in the realm of sociology and history.


There is no evidence of a shortage of goods. None whatsoever. The shortage is manufactured by the excesses of the top 1%. We see evidence of this every single day.

This is something that needs to be dealt with. We can do it the "easy way" (create laws that break up monopolies and cartels, reduce wealth inequality, and enhance public infrastructure and goods) or the hard way (violence).

There isn't a shortage of goods? How do you know that?

How do you know that there is?

How am I supposed to feel like there is a shortage when the excess is so momumentous? When we waste unimaginable amounts of food, water, and even shelter? What shortage? The Ubited States wastes over a third of its food supply. A THIRD.

The shortage is entirely artificial.

[Elwher]

Why does my subjective opinion matter? My opinion shouldn't dictate what is or isn't culture


You can’t say that everything created for profit is automatically inauthentic. A studio executive might want a show made to earn money, while the writers working on it might be motivated by the ideas they want to explore. Does that really make the show “inauthentic” just because its original purpose involves profit?


Don't be scared of the truth


There isn't a shortage of goods? How do you know that?

How do you know that there is?

How am I supposed to feel like there is a shortage when the excess is so momumentous? When we waste unimaginable amounts of food, water, and even shelter? What shortage? The Ubited States wastes over a third of its food supply. A THIRD.

The shortage is entirely artificial.

Given unlimited wants and limited resources, a shortage is inevitable. The entire purpose of any economic system is the allocation of those limited resources in the best way. The difficulties arise due to varying definitions of 'best'.

[Daemonkin of Corn]

How do you know that there is?

How am I supposed to feel like there is a shortage when the excess is so momumentous? When we waste unimaginable amounts of food, water, and even shelter? What shortage? The Ubited States wastes over a third of its food supply. A THIRD.

The shortage is entirely artificial.

Given unlimited wants and limited resources, a shortage is inevitable. The entire purpose of any economic system is the allocation of those limited resources in the best way. The difficulties arise due to varying definitions of 'best'.

Its funny when people say ideological mantras like that as though they are a fact.

[I S T O]

Why does my subjective opinion matter? My opinion shouldn't dictate what is or isn't culture


You can’t say that everything created for profit is automatically inauthentic. A studio executive might want a show made to earn money, while the writers working on it might be motivated by the ideas they want to explore. Does that really make the show “inauthentic” just because its original purpose involves profit?


Don't be scared of the truth


There isn't a shortage of goods? How do you know that?

How do you know that there is?

How am I supposed to feel like there is a shortage when the excess is so momumentous? When we waste unimaginable amounts of food, water, and even shelter? What shortage? The Ubited States wastes over a third of its food supply. A THIRD.

The shortage is entirely artificial.

Is that enough to feed the world? I doubt the amount of surplus that exists in first world nations matches the need of the world

[Daemonkin of Corn]

How do you know that there is?

How am I supposed to feel like there is a shortage when the excess is so momumentous? When we waste unimaginable amounts of food, water, and even shelter? What shortage? The Ubited States wastes over a third of its food supply. A THIRD.

The shortage is entirely artificial.

Is that enough to feed the world? I doubt the amount of surplus that exists in first world nations matches the need of the world

Feed the world? We won't even feed downtown. Can we do that at least?

The State of a nation exists for the people of that nation. We are constrained by artificial scarcity on the local level, let alone on an international scale. (That scarcity though is more than likely also totally artificial.)