RE: Fascists in a nutshell, also happy 4th!
Regarding the first video, third world countries are not disregarded because there is no profit to gain there, exactly the opposite, there are huge investments in third world countries precisely because it's a rising market where new players can prosper without giant corporations controlling the market.
The helicopter guy example is not of Capitalism but if greed, the capitalistic logic here is that he has a right to individually consider his choice in this situation and so do his future coworker and clients on whether to work with him at all.
The entire video talks about Capitalism as if it's a standard way of thinking, a bottom-linism when we all know that some people do choose to give millions to charity, not as an anti capitalistic action but because Capitalism doesn't stand in people's way, if people want to give charity they can, if people want to evaluate charity-givers they do.
Also it makes zero sense to put so much responsibility over people's lives on Capitalism, simply because Capitalism doesn't hold the power, people do.
Sorry, I won't read the book, I'm sure it had much valuable information but I asked a specific question reacting to a specific argument. If you have read it, I'd be glad if you could give the relevant quote or at least direct us to an exact page so we can share it here with everyone else.
About the second video, it seems to show what a capitalistic society would do to preserve itself.
It doesn't address that at all, as if communism is synonym with pacifism - so I'm asking you - how do you think the communist side of the island would react if demographical changes were to threaten their survival?
If we adhere to the rules of capitalism specific events will always happen, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, capital accumulation, imperialism, etc.
All of these things are done in an attempt to prolong capitalism, so we must destroy the people doing so. Your statement changes nothing
I agree with you that these actions that masses of individuals take can be even considered imperialism and attempts to prolong Capitalism, as long as we agree that they are voluntary actions.
In my opinion these actions could not be completed without major contributions from the third world.
That's why it is most horrible to see you end that sentence with "so we must destroy the people doing so.".
My statement changes nothing, yours seems to explain the black book.
super-profits, and there is no profit in feeding the starving masses. There is major profit to be made oppressing them though.
Letting them starve is unethical. Giving them opportunity is so low for your standards so you call it oppression.
Leaving it for communism to magical make it an utopia for everyone including the illiterate and uninformed - that's the right thing do. And it's ok if some people starve on the way there because the utopia is worth so much more.
capital accumulation ---> tenancy of the rate of profit to fall ----> lowering wages or lowering profit ----> market crash after market crash ----> rise of unions ----> wages rise ---> crashes and threat of crashes become much worse ---> capitalists and gov work together to reduce wages ----> gov runs out of options, resorts to imperialism to combat lowering rate of profit ---> runs out of countries ---> more market crashes ---> ww2 ---> market boom ---> invasion and oppression of third world countries to keep wages artificially low to keep the system alive
For the book, it also goes over things like how monopolies will always form under capitalism.
read the top comment on their video. The communists would rise up because the capitalists would rise up "theoretically". That means its a fight to the death between freedom and capitalism
So if it's a fight to the death, what is the video about? Two ideologies fighting?
Ok, so who cares?
Those who lost but still have the freedom of speech to express their dissatisfaction with the ruling class.
"The entire video talks about Capitalism as if it's a standard way of thinking, a bottom-linism when we all know that some people do choose to give millions to charity, not as an anti capitalistic action but because Capitalism doesn't stand in people's way, if people want to give charity they can, if people want to evaluate charity-givers they do."
They give millions when they have hundreds of billions. It's pocket change to them. 5 people own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population
Yes, exactly so. And the great thing is that anyone can become rich and donate 99% of their wealth using their final will or something like that. Just like a small minority of them do, as you would expect from people who are not forced to choose one way or another.
You could too by the way, I take it to be infinitely more effective than hoping that one day AI could play the perfect party leadership or what have you.
ah yes, because most people get a choice in what job they take lmao. Have you even stepped outside your bubble?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-engaged-work.aspx
take a look at these polls. If jobs were voluntary, don't you think people would enjoy them? Let me guess "its corporatism not capitalism". lmao
Yes, people have that choice because nobody stands in their way. They have to consider it alongside the rest of the factors in their life. That's as much choice as life can give you.
Is it Capitalism's flaw that you have yet to manage your situation to gain enough financial freedom so that you could have total freedom over where you work and where you would not, so now must give up on some of your values in some choices you have to make - you take that untilized freedom to be a system flaw?
I don't think so, but look! You are free to think so even if everyone considered it logical fallacy.
Thanks.
No one is obligated to have his obligations outgrow his agility. I personally hope that if the communist utopia ever takes over - it'd have parents take lengthy tests to get a parenthood licence. But I value personal freedom more so, you know, you have to make compromises.
http://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/
its more efficient to pass off costs of something like police to the workers. This was done by the capitalists when they got tired of paying for a private force that did essentially the same thing as police today. Take a look at history lmao
Am not a libertarian, would like the police, healthcare, firefighters and much more welfare. Do I still need to read it?
Let's go over ownership.
ownership doesn't exist, we adhere to these rules because of the monopoly of violence enforcing capitalism. The basis of capitalism is violence. This violence is what forces 20 million to die of poverty a year when we produce much more food than we need as a species.
capitalism puts the people that would enforce its existence into power. This means we must destroy every aspect of capitalism in society to be free from it, there is no other way.
Ownership doesn't exist exactly the way rights don't exist.
You and this video describe ownership as if it could come from above, and we made some compromise along the way. I'm now riding a train with my bag alongside me, no one around me needs any government to tell them that taking my bag is theft. It's constructed but we practice it together, because it makes sense this way, universally.
That mystical thing that connects me and my belongings is what I did to obtain it, and it's no one's business, until I have to prove it.
I am familiar with the concept of "property is theft", and to sum it up I'd say that property and theft are both matters of consent. If no one caught you stealing, you own what you took, that's sad but it has nothing to do with ideology.
If you are looking only for intrinsic values, you are going in for some bad time, it's a philosophical trap basically.
I don't see how this ties to Capitalism being responsible for lives outside of the main centers of capitalistic activities.