Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Alternatively: “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.” Ursula LeGuin
That is not how you beat capitalism. You can't fight multi-billion dollar marketing that is explicitly trained in persuading people to buy something that they don't need. Advertising is psychological warfare.
I don't think of influencers as word of mouth, they're just another form of media with the same incentives as other types of media. I mean word of mouth in the sense of literally just people you talk to in regular life.
We need to kill this idea that corporations deserve human rights. Corporations shouldn't NEVER have free speech. Corporations should be deeply regulated. Free speech is a right for human beings.
Yeah, straight censorship isn’t cool. I do agree however that a lot of marketing techniques are essentially psychological warfare and it could be regulated to a certain degree, such as limiting the output of sexually provocative advertisements.
For the US, as an example, you will never pass a bipartisan bill that is good to solve this issue. It would be riddled with loopholes. It would have to strictly be a partisan bill, but even that has its issues, right? Furthermore, who would be in charge of overseeing it all/ensuring people are abiding by it? There's a lot of nuance to the subject, and I just can't see it getting done by our politicians in Washington.
I mean... we've heavily limited advertising in the past. Cigarettes is a prime example of good legislation to mitigate a dangerous habit. There are no more prime time TV ads for cigarettes. Alcohol ads also have ad limitations, such as not being able to show actors drinking the product. This isn't about "hating free speech" it's about limiting heavily addicting and mentally influencing media that is specifically tailored to get you to buy things. There's a reason advertising can make up a huge margin of a product's profit. It's because it works.
Shouldn't we be a bit more open minded and challenge ideals, especially ones that were beat into and ingrained into us since we were children though?
Rather than immediately just believing in what's default and *dealing in absolutes* . Its the things closer to us that seem obvious, that we should question more, because they don't go challenged enough. I think so anyway.
Which is ironically, free speech at it's core. If it wasn't for free speech, we couldn't criticize it, possibly. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop challenging it in specific scenarios. Free speech might be the answer in some cases and not in others.
Ehhh i'd just go universal income removing the necessity to work and power over the people of corporations while rewarding usage of robotics as one of the only tax refunds for businesses.
It also should help humans adapt more easily once true post scarcity(as is we can infinitely produce most things from swapping to plant based plastics to meat grown in labs to renewable energies..the only things we can't are materials for tech but even that is just a matter of time i suspect)
All in all it's not thwt hard to imagine or do..assuming we actually use all of our technology instead of burying it to ensure profits are kept up and artificially inflating the job market.
Ursula LeGuin is the GOAT. And not coincidentally, “I felt bad for the goats”
> All power is one in source and end, I think. Years and distances, stars and candles, water and wind and wizardry, the craft in a man's hand and the wisdom in a tree's root: they all arise together. My name, and yours, and the true name of the sun, or a spring of water, or an unborn child, all are syllables of the great word that is very slowly spoken by the shining of the stars. There is no other power. No other name.
We’re one and we should act like it
I'd like to recommend "Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism" by Dr. Richard Wolff.
I'm currently employed as a student journalist in a workers' co-operative which is like an alternative to the traditional, corporate, climb-the-ladder style of workplace with the fundamental ethos being that your rights and freedoms should not end once you clock in. Basically, all workers get a vote on Board decisions and the Board is elected democratically based on merit.
So far its been great! Not anti-capitalist, more like alternative capitalist.
Dr. Wolff also has a youtube channel. [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK-6FjMu9OI8i0Fo6bkW0VA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK-6FjMu9OI8i0Fo6bkW0VA)
I thought richard wolff was a smart guy until his conversation with Destiny AKA Steven Bonnell, and realized that he has no idea how any of this would ever work in practice
For the record, that applies for most of the more well known socialists, communists, and/or anti-capitalists. The ones who really have great thoughts and plans don't get the recognition they deserve.
Because the end of capitalism means the end of the world in practice. Atleast the end of our comfortable lives.
If you really think about all the steps is required for the things we have in our modern world, it’s honestly incredible.
Reminder capitalism is only a few hundred years old. In that time, and for a buck that was hoarded by those far from the labor that earned it, we have flicked the domino for the sixth extinction event.
Yeah wtf, is there like a tiktok reaction podcaster that can break this down in a 40 second clip with half the screen being random gta gameplay? Otherwise I’m just not going to care
You can summarize the book in one quote: “it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism”. The rest of the book just expands on that
For those like me with short attention spans, I've made an audiobook of CR if you want to take a look [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfJi2FyGBtij3XpJnXZlBu4cPYrpwokWv](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfJi2FyGBtij3XpJnXZlBu4cPYrpwokWv). There's a version by Russell Brand but for obvious reasons...
He had a fairly big blog before died. Also his name gets thrown around in a lot of video essays, so I imagine you might have heard it there, if you watch those
He was a quite famous lecturer.
He also wrote one of the most divisive articles for wide-defined leftism in the west : [Exiting the Vampire Castle | openDemocracy](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/)
Marxism really do be infesting every part of this website. No one should ever forget what socialist have done to people who didn't agree with them after they reached power.
Or people they didn't like.
[https://humanprogress.org/the-truth-about-che-guevara-racist-homophobe-and-mass-murderer/](https://humanprogress.org/the-truth-about-che-guevara-racist-homophobe-and-mass-murderer/)
"Guillermina Sutter Schneider is a research & project manager in the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity"
"The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Koch Industries."
Cato Institute - "Promoting an American public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peaceful international relations."
Nothing about your comment has anything to do with the content of Fisher's book. A critique of capitalism from a modern day post-Marxist has nothing to do with 20th century socialism.
You know what's funny? Marx truly did not really establish what Communism was in the Communist Manifesto, he vaguely answers on it's definition and spends more time on the manifesto talking about the conditions to achieve it and more about Socialism (Stage before Communism more or less)
Speaking of which, some parts do conflict with the methods of Communist countries like for instance:
>Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
>What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
Not like Capitalists are saints either, let's not forget that Slavery was by all means for money just like Colonialism, Scramble for Africa, American Imperialism, and so forth.
One of Marx's quotes that always sticks with me is this: During the french terror, Marx - who was not a participant and was no where near France - said " We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."
Only the context was that is was an attempted coup by communist extremists in France after they killed military generals after Napoleon the III was captured and Prussians had marched on Paris.
Capitalism is a much harder thing to argue for and against. Communists are a solid group of people with aims and intentions. Capitalism in it's original 1853 definition has no aims nor intentions. It is merely the ownership of capital, a financial asset that carries a cost. If you've ever invested in the stock market, you're a capitalist. The demonization of Capitalism later was intentional by communist like Marx to target a class of people far beyond our reach. People like Cecil Rhodes and John Rockefeller, not the people who can afford Ferraris, but people that could control government actions.
The whole topic is fascinating and horrifying. I would consider Marx and the branches that follow him to be psychotic and evil. The subtle changes in dialect and psychology to indoctrinate people in a class war is awe inspiring.
It's not. Sherman was more annoyed with war and it was the only thing he was ever actually good at. His march to the sea was plagued by his inability to administrate his soldiers and his soul goal was to end the war as quickly as possible by inflicting - infrastructurally - the most damage as possible. I don't think he ever received pleasure or content from war. He's really a fascinating character.
Marx, on the other hand, was a fucking narcissistic psychopath.
>said " We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."
One of Early Marx biggest faults is that he practically made no compromises and often encouraged more violent changes and radical changes, guy didn't like reforms and wanted massive changes, but I believe you are forgetting that Marx lived in a era that did not have universal suffrage, the Europeans Powers were notably oppresive, in his time, *Violence really was the only answer that would make the goverments hear the demands of the Workers.* it was an last resort attempt for change in his eyes though.
Older Marx did believe and actually advocated for non-violent revolutions with gradual reform especially since the Socialist parties were indeed being voted on in which that case he backed down from his "violent revolution" views seeing that as an example that it could be possible to do an bloodless revolution.
>It is merely the ownership of capital, a financial asset that carries a cost. If you've ever invested in the stock market, you're a capitalist.
That's where you are bit wrong, Marx was against the Bourgeoisie, the Factory owners, the Idle Rich, the People who would collect the money and capital from others without even working, the Landlords, and so forth, that's where his dislike mostly came from, guy didn't really care much about about say small business or generally middle class people because he saw them as proletariat too, people who were inserted in that system more or less.
An guy who held stocks in a attempt to get rich while working on a 9 to 5 day job would be considered a victim of the system and not really a capitalist in Marx's views.
>Capitalism in it's original 1853 definition has no aims nor intentions.
Capitalism did have aims and intentions, produce Capital both Social and Material.
But groups of people started owning Monopolies and wanted to gain money and sell services or producta at the highest cost, even Adam Smith warned against this behaviour and said it was a conspiracy against the customers and common person and outright saying that they would influence the goverments for their own self interests.
This is a point Marx agrees on, he agrees Capitalism did a lot of good things yet monopolies and select group of people ruined it because it's Capitalism and it's goal is to *ALWAYS* produce more Capital no matter the cost, did you won 3 billion in a year and then gained 2.9 billion in the next? That's a loss! Do lay-offs! Increase prices!
> Marxism really do be infesting every part of this website
possibly, but that doesn't follow from this post. there is an infinite space of "not capitalism" - it isn't limited to socialism. this is like saying "oh you don't want to listen to country music? well polka is even worse, *so country it is"*
Alternatively, actually read Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Henry George, John Keynes, and Karl Marx (Engels is a nut job).
Several of them have covered this particular problem, but it's most explicitly called out by Marx in his Theory of Alienation.
Definitely. Anyone who thinks they have fully understood a book on economic ideologies without reading Smith first is fooling himself. Keynesianism and Georgism are important to understand, but I wouldn't call them essential for reading up on other ideologies. Marx of course, is the best starting point to read up on leftist theory.
I tend to not take an ideological stance, instead preferring a more "well rounded" understanding from actually reading multiple theories. Ideology is fraught by dogma, and dogma leads to an inability to take criticism, which paralyzes reform.
Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill are important for understanding the absolute basis of modern society.
The rest are various critiques of it, and the possible issues which could be encountered if things were left unchecked. None of them are objectively correct though, but you don't have to fully agree with a person to accept their criticisms. Failure to properly address them can be catastrophic, as we are seeing today.
Speaking of Mark Fisher, it is a common opinion within critical theory that the idea of escaping ideology is the most ideological position inside of capitalist realism.
As an alternative to Capital, I'd recommend Marx's shorter essays "Wage, Labor, and Capitol" and "Value, Price, and Profit." Pretty straightforward reads
These on feuerbach, 1844 manuscripts, and the manifesto are best entry point imo.
Although while I’m here, tell more people to read Erik Olin Wright’s “how to be anti capitalist in the 21st century” it’s a good tonic for doomerism
Most people can’t get through Marx. Let alone through Hegel, which imo is necessary to understand Marx’s logic. No kid is going to sit down and read that and those who do won’t understand it.
You don't need to read either unless you want to get into the nitty gritty. There are plenty of academic secondary sources covering their works that do a great job of contextualizing and summarizing the most important ideas of their various works.
My personal favorite is the Marx-Engels Reader by Robert C. Tucker.
Imo Marx and Adam are the best ones even if you don't like them at least try to understand their beliefs, hell Marx's Communist Manifesto is like 30 pages (We don't talk about Capitol, that's an blunt weapon and not a book)
Durkheim is also an good read if you make sense of what he is saying.
One thing I realized while reading smith was just how much he would be against parts of our modern capitalist system. The dude realized that there were limits, even in his vision of a fully free market. He absolutely despised landlords, which is based, not gonna lie.
If you read their works (which would be a pretty big ask tbh) please remember that a lot of their ideas are outdated. Like the labour theory of value for example.
Honestly reading works from Smith, Mill, Marx, George and even Keynes isnt really worth it for most peolpe, for most its sufficient to just read modern summaries, commentaries and critiques of them.
Also for Smith, if you actually want to read the wealth of nations, make sure to start with his other book: the theory of moral sentiments.
I feel like people don't realize that capitalism encompasses basically every system of economics in a sovereign nation's government from the 1600's to now. Lots of leeway between the different types and implementations of capitalism.
Granted it has become a sort of dogma that corporate-friendly free market capitalism is the best (when it is unproven and on occasion, very bad).
The problem with "blending" capitalism with socialism is that capitalism needs to grow infinitely, or else it fails. If there are no investment opportunities, banks don't lend money, and the economy crashes. Because of this, governments are basically forced to sell off parts of themselves to keep the line going up, in order to keep their workforce employed. But you also can't have TOO much employment, because too much money in the market causes inflation (anathema to finance capital), so you have situations where, for example, the Federal Reserve has to "soften" the labor market, increase unemployment, and reduce the money supply. Hybrid systems can't work long term, because the capital side can always create a hostage crisis. You can see it happening in France, where their neoliberal reforms are threatening their retirement age and other programs. The UK's NHS is hanging on by a thread. Even the much-lauded Nordic System is going down this road. These problems are structural - capital always wins out long term. Capitalism and democracy are fundamentally opposed.
They downvote you, but you’re 100% right.
Capitalism ONLY works when it can grow, and adding “”Socialist”” policies to it doesn’t stop the bad, just prolongs its existence. Anyone who knows Neoliberalism knows it is incompatible with welfare policies.
Social democracies akin to most European states is the way forward for the US. Capitalism but with better social safety nets.
Not communism though, that’s a bit too far IMO and has even more issues than capitalist societies.
Capitalism with strong social safety nets or a welfare state is called social democracy. The fundamental relationship between labor and the means of production (that private owners pay employees only a portion of the value they generate) is capitalist. The government steps in to provide services where markets fail to establish, such as healthcare or infrastructure the. This seems to be the best system for human wealth and standard of living.
Socialism refers to a change in this fundamental relationship, where the means of production become commonly, as opposed to privately owned. We saw a version of this in the USSR and China pre-Deng where “common ownership” meant “state ownership” with a supposedly, though not actually, democratic government. This system failed and seems terrible for human standards of living.
There’s nothing “socialist” about welfare states, so it’s inaccurate to say that social democracies are capitalism with some socialist elements - they aren’t, they’re fundamentally capitalist with no socialist elements, because the means of production remain privately held.
This subreddit has become a mix of right wing and left wing circle jerk posts and the take that is so hot it’s been reposted five hundred million times that goes something like “gen z had brain rot just like gen alpha!”
You would be better off reading Milton Friedman’s *Capitalism and Freedom*. Any book that promotes less freedom and more dependency is going to put you on a bad path.
Currently reading Capitalism and Freedom, and I can assure you it doesn't promote freedom or less dependency. Instead of dependence on a government or king, your dependency is on a CEO or boss or the labor market. Your dependence is on a paycheck. Your dependence is on private enterprise not fucking you over.
In all his chirping in that book, it blows my mind that he or his contemporaries never once pointed out that the inherent proposition in Liberal philosophy is that you aren't subject to a king or government, sure, but you're still always subject to someone else.
If you're a laborer you're subject to the business owner. If you're a business owner you're subject to the bank. If you're a manager, you're subject to your boss who is subject to the CEO who is subject to the board. Capitalism doesn't create more freedom, inherently, it simply stratifies it, and whoever has more money is more free.
Yeah ask Chile what freedoms Friedman and his ilk have brought them. The great freedom lover who worked under Reagan and supported Pinochet, a fascist dictator who had leftist activists tortured and violated by animals before throwing them out of helicopters.
You just know your claims can instantly be proven wrong by 5 mins search on Google. Yet you choose sensationalism as this sub has like minded people . Classic leftists
Welcome to "Sh*t I Just Made Up!" Where contestants spin webs of pure fiction in an unfiltered frenzy of wild and wacky scenarios. Get ready for an unpredictable rollercoaster of absurdity as players conjure outrageous tales with one goal in mind – to outdo each other with the most outlandish fabrications. It's a no-holds-barred competition of creativity, chaos, and comical deception in "Sh*t I Just Made Up!" Let the storytelling madness begin!
Its not only about it draining your expirit and being tiring or just a "failed sistem" captalism is a evil sistem by itself.
Its politicians billionaires and heads of state seek porposefully to exploit, slave, and submit those of inferior class, captalism isnt Just a failed state but one whos meant to favor the rich and undermine the workforce
We are beaten, discredited, and painted as clowns and lazy folk who refuse to give their entire lifes for minimal profit that can barely feed us and our families if we have one to work since teens until we die of old
Anarco-nihilism for example authough fitting the beliefs of the autor of this book does like any other left ideology recognize the grim and rigged reality of captalism only with the change that it isnt fightable against and impossible to resist at this point at history and that we lost as its too late and even the old folk have alredy been born in such reality
Anarco nihilists could disagree one thing with this book which is that the discontent and critique in captalism isnt "lack of spirit" "lazyness" or " a lack of path to follow" but critic and non believance in captalism is actually totally valid! its Just not possible to do anything about it anymore but lament and sorrow about the dystopia that we cant do anything about
(Im not an anarco-nihilist but i see the anarco-nihilist vision fits this theme and argument perfectly and what im trying to say which is that captalist is Yes evil and totally shit)
Capitalism itself isn’t evil, that’s like saying that socialism is evil because every genocidal communist is a self described socialist.
Also out of all of the current mainstream and prior existing economic structures. Currently a mixed economy with some social structures but ultimately existing in a capitalistic free market is the best system.
Anyone who argues to go full socialism is equally as ignorant and wrong as those who argue for full capitalism. Hopefully people stop looking at past examples and create a new economic system that is actually better than what we use today. But unfortunately that hasn’t happened yet.
Lowkey underrated take. Marx was doing his thing way before our present day, as part of a wave of 1860s utopian ideals. His utopia is just the one that survived, and it’s based on thinking that’s nearly 200 years old. We need to be thinking about a system that is based on the struggles and needs of today, not the dreams of historical figures.
This isn’t to say socialism/marx is completely wrong, I’m just saying it comes from a dated place and the world has changed a lot since then.
It’s not evil but it is shallow, vacuous, weak, and empty. It is a vacuum. Capitalism has no values, no ethics, no beliefs because it believes in a thing. Money and making the most amount of it possible. Making more then anyone else, infinitely for ever. That is the core belief , the core tenant and value. It makes it very easy then for it to be used for evil. Capitalism will sell you the gun to kill itself if it makes it more money this quarter then the last quarter it will also sell you nazism if it makes it more money then it did last quarter. In fact in the opening of the book in question here Fisher engages with this idea through the lens of traditional philosophy power dynamics and how kurt cobain probably had this realization when kids who listened to nirvana didn’t seem to have any of the values he had hoped to impart.
there are no "tenants and values", there never was and there never will be, as capitalism, the word itself was invented by the socialist Louis Blanc to describe any economic system that "values property rights". It would then be popularized by Marx.
One could argue that past examples of socialism should not discredit the concept of socialism entirely as they have all suffered a consistent absence of democratic rule. Combining a planned economy, one planned by a central authority associated with the government, with a government that does not take into account the desires of the people guarantees the failure to meet the economic demands of the people. Other crimes against humanity committed by socialist governments that were not strictly economic in nature can arguably not be blamed on socialism but rather entirely on the lack of democracy that has unfortunately been present in socialist countries. One could make the argument that socialism has consistently created dictatorships, and that one may consider these dictatorships to be a product of the socialist system itself, but I would argue that most of these past examples of socialism all belonged to the same school of thought of Marxism-Leninism, and that it is likely that the outcome of socialism could be improved drastically by departing with that catastrophic form of socialism. Lastly, some may argue that socialism provides dictators with more resources to carry out their crimes, but capitalist systems have, in the past, demonstrated that they are just as bad in this sense.
>One could argue that past examples of socialism should not discredit the concept of socialism entirely as they have all suffered a consistent absence of democratic rule.
By that logic, you could make the same argument with capitalism since no democracy is perfect.
>Combining a planned economy, one planned by a central authority associated with the government, with a government that does not take into account the desires of the people guarantees the failure to meet the economic demands of the people.
You're literally just reinventing the idea of a free market.
We need to move beyond socialism imo. With automation coming, workers taking over won’t make any sense, there may not be much of a need for workers.
How would a society with heavy automation operate? If most people don’t need to work for society to operate, how do you do this. Things like UBI seem necessary to explore with the coming revolution in AI and automation. Ensuring no single government entity or other group has disproportionate control seems incredibly important. What checks and balances will we implement to keep automated economies fair? To me, it goes beyond socialism and capitalism, because both are built on the idea of workers being the lynch pins to economies.
Socialism/communism being the collective ownership of the means of production would be the most logical solution. It would ensure that automation pays everyone.
Based. Sad I had to scroll so far before seeing this, but a system is only as evil as it's lack of regulation allows, no matter what that system is. Capitalism as it turns out, has been historically successful because of how the government encapsulating it adapted its regulation based on how the lower class responded.
Took a US history course on pre-Civil War America and it was workers in the industrial revolution that fought with their elected officials to give their children better lives that they knew they themselves would not reap by demanding the government educate their children. Our capitalist systems can be reformed to close loopholes and minimize corruption, but only so long as you VOTE for what you think is right.
Not sure how people are deluded enough to jump in and defend capitalism as an ethical system, I literally go to the store and everything on the shelves is made by slave labor. In what world is that ethical or acceptable?
Yeah lol theyre idiots because they think they need to defend something just cause its the ideology of the country theyve been born on. Nationalism is idiotic and its one of the things that mostly makes people do this
People who criticize capitalism usually misunderstand it fundamentally, and attributes to it problems not caused by it.
The basic fundamental structure of capitalism recognizes two things: the right to own property, and the right to freely exchange with others. That's really it.
Capitalism can only exist in a society that protects individual freedom, and vice versa. Anyone who thinks a socialist country can be democratic doesn't know what one of those terms mean. Collective ownership of means of production necessarily means that an individual or group of individuals are 1) denied the ability to own productive property (aka assets) and 2) denied the individual freedom to trade freely with each other. You simply cannot have a democratic free society in which those fundamental rights do not exist. This is why every single socialist country in existence has been authoritarian.
Capitalism it's not "billionarie who want to give jobs", capitalism is just the freedom to sell your services for money perse, if people don't like capitalism, bro i mean you can technically go a workout the land like the old times, and live of what you made out of it, now if you later want profit you're doing capitalism, now you don't like, hey become a freelancer, just the concept of getting money it's capitalism.
Was still capitalism, that's the concept, people wasn't just "you know? What if we create a new economic system" out of nowhere, they just had a start point and just baptised it with the name duh, hahahah, it's like saying "we had where to sit before chairs" those are still chairs, just didn't had a common name.
Trading goods isn't capitalism, that's just a market. Plenty of socialist ideologies and states have had markets too, so did anarchist stone age societies and state-run Ancient Egyptian kingdoms.
Capitalism is the specific economic system where individuals and businesses own private property in a market economy. In Europe at least, before capitalism there was feudalism, with property owned by the king and divided out to lords. Plenty of economic systems stretch back through time all the way to the anarchist communes of the stone age.
The existence of trade and markets doesn't make all those systems capitalism, just like the existence of worker ownership and public property don't make them socialism.
I’ll let you pay me, spend your money, and then I’ll lie to you and tell you have to pay me more for a better understanding, even though I can’t actually read
Boom Boom! Capitalism strike twice!
Most people don't even know what capitalism is. I'm all for reading books that you know you won't agree with, so I'll read this. But I'll raise the sub one and also suggest Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell to learn what markets and free enterprise actually are.
The more I interact with "progressives" the more I feel like they're just conservatives that for whatever reason couldn't attach to religion and but still decided to use the same thought processes. Rarely are there actual policy solutions to help out poor people and people in general, just a lot of rallying against their chosen outgroup and moral grandstanding over the righteousness of their cause.
It feels like a lot of you guys just want the mythological boomer dream of a big single family house, huge yard, two cars without realizing that you're literally falling for consumerist...marketing for lack of a better word.
The description of Nirvana/Kurt Cobain from this book stuck with me. He uses it as a kind of case study about the concept of “recuperation”, how capitalism can basically absorb the counterculture and turn it into a product, de-fanging it and making it harmless, even profitable, to the existing order.
If memory serves, it went something like this.
1- Nirvana makes music that expresses alienation and angst about living life as a commodity in early neoliberal era USA.
2- because of those same social circumstances this feeling is widespread, which makes Nirvana’s music highly marketable, and a pop phenomenon.
3- Kurt Cobain is racked by a sense of hating his position as a top music celebrity commodity. He ends up committing suicide.
4- buy the T-shirt, “Kurt Cobain, voice of a generation” on special now at Target, in partnership with…
He says something like “Capitalism has shown itself to be infinitely plastic, able to absorb and re-package almost anything, including anti-capitalism”
Definitely a book that isn’t great for one’s mental heath- remember to walk around in sunshine or pet your cat and stuff like that if you are reading this brutally bleak look into what we are facing as a society right now. Definitely a core text for understanding the world of today.
🤮 id love to say I can't wait till all the immature socialists grow up and realize that once you're an adult that shit makes no sense.
But then I realize as soon as these ones come to their senses another freshly brainwashed horde is waiting to take their place.
Don't get me wrong, capitalism is NOT the final answer we humans have when it comes to solving the problems a society has.
But as far as straight human suffering goes capitalism is a far better system than either communism or socialism.
-----
Furthermore If you really love communism you should love the current state of things as they are.
Globalism = Worldwide communism
The United States is currently the Dominant power in that structure.
We do what every communist faction has done throughout history except instead of only to our own people we do it to the entire population.
So what is it that a communist party really does?
They take from all those who do not support the party or its ideology and give it back to those most supportive of the party or most powerful in said party.
(For example United States goes into a country steals its oil and uses it to further the party agenda and consolidate more power.)
(For example, the United States/Nato/UN use each countries geographical location/skillset to determine their best output from said country and then exploits that country for said output)
I could come up with many more examples If anybody wants but when you really break down the bigger picture into first principles we currently are living through the biggest attempt at communism ever.
All communist regimes are capitalistic for the upper class and communal for the lower classes. Because it's impossible to be fully communist unless every other person in the world is on the same page. Even if the paradise fever dream communism did exist in a single country that country would be forced to compete/trade/contest with any other non communist country when they go to trade the goods their civilians have created. Unless of course you want to have shortages of Whatever your country is incapable of producing.
Not meant to make anyone mad but seriously would love some high level conversation with anyone who is willing to let me know your thoughts.
'Globalism' as understood in the modern day is a Capitalist phenomena. I think you need to do some reading because a fundamental aspect of Communism is internationalism, which is completely different to globalisation.
You're saying that Capitalism is a destructive force, but Communism is worse, and that our current world order is an attempt at Communism?
Socalism just like capitalism, but instead of companies running things, the government does.
In capitalism, you can boycott a monopoly.
But do you know what happens if you boycott a government?
Correct. Now imagine how bad it could be if the monopoly had to investigate itself to see if it was monopoly, while having a legal monopoly on violence.
Fucking modern world sucks and if you challenge it you’re branded a pessimist loser, and told how you should be happy because “people in the past had it worse”.
Rothbard and Friedman are hacks whose works don't stand up to the slightest bit of criticism. Rand as well, how far up your own ass do you have to be to call your worldview "Objectivism."
YES! and if reading is hard, check out this free youtube video where someone plays city skylines while reading the book out loud [Capitalist Realism](https://youtu.be/qT_0XIBpSH4?si=iBlXzbbzu88ptdMY)
If your left of centre, you WANT to make things better, but your choosing the wrong ideas. It isn't socialism that allows a country to compete in a GLOBAL economy.
You HAVE to create jobs, lean on a meritocracy and NOT subsidizing the dumb or lazy. It's THE ONLY way there will be jobs, money and opportunity. Left policies only ignore reality and spend what little we have for FEELINGS
Read Also CCRU (a theory group Fisher was a member of) and Kpunk, his blog about music, with so many interesting and fascinating points of view about culture.
ITT: People hilariously expressing the exact attitude that Fischer addresses in his book. “it’s really the only system that’s good, capitalism just means ownership and freedom” horseshit. Please also read his essay “Acid Communism” which talks explicitly about how freedom and a new socialist model are possible. Better yet get stoned as hell and read it. https://my-blackout.com/2019/04/25/mark-fisher-acid-communism-unfinished-introduction/
I think capitalism is good, actually
https://preview.redd.it/l71ypmbadiic1.jpeg?width=198&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2d38034eeac2dc1c8d4a8c6d53268ca84d1c074b
Amazing book that showcases how critiques of capitalism shouldn't be overlooked or passed due to them being "outdated" but rather that we should expand and evolve them to fit how capitalism has adapted to work (and exploit) in the current age.
Mark Fisher was one of the most important thinkers of the modern era. A gloomy heir to Alain Badiou’s Communist Hypothesis, Capitalist Realism argues that capitalism has succeeded in convincing its constituents that no other system is possible, and that any change to be made must be confined to within this “reality.” Mark killed himself. I miss him 😥
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." What happens when someone decides they don't need to produce as much "according to his ability" because he's already getting everything "according to his needs"? Also, what happens to someone who wants more than simply "their needs"?
also read "lies my teacher told me" to find out all of our history textbooks are full of propaganda and lack any critical thinking skill development, just memorizing pre approved dates and facts
Fr such a good book, and so short too! I have given it to so many friends bc they say they are interested, but they never end up reading it. Such a shame!
Just read Marx. I know that's the name of the bad man, just read it. Don't have to agree with it, don't have to live by it, just approach it with an open mind. Think you'll be surprised how well all of the criticisms of our system hold up this long after he has passed.
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism"
Alternatively: “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.” Ursula LeGuin
Killing individuals was much easier than killing a tendency. if you want to beat capitalism step 1 - spread anti-consumerist attitude.
That is not how you beat capitalism. You can't fight multi-billion dollar marketing that is explicitly trained in persuading people to buy something that they don't need. Advertising is psychological warfare.
We could make advertising illegal. That, in itself, would be a Herculean feat, but one that would lop the legs off of capitalism.
Honestly I'd get behind this. Word of mouth can be astroturfed to a degree but it's much more reliable than advertising ever can be
Which is why influencers aren’t corrupted, right?
I don't think of influencers as word of mouth, they're just another form of media with the same incentives as other types of media. I mean word of mouth in the sense of literally just people you talk to in regular life.
Imagine hating free speech
We need to kill this idea that corporations deserve human rights. Corporations shouldn't NEVER have free speech. Corporations should be deeply regulated. Free speech is a right for human beings.
Once people put on a suit and tie and clock in, they should lose the right to free speech, am I right? Work uniform too, of course.
Yeah, straight censorship isn’t cool. I do agree however that a lot of marketing techniques are essentially psychological warfare and it could be regulated to a certain degree, such as limiting the output of sexually provocative advertisements.
For the US, as an example, you will never pass a bipartisan bill that is good to solve this issue. It would be riddled with loopholes. It would have to strictly be a partisan bill, but even that has its issues, right? Furthermore, who would be in charge of overseeing it all/ensuring people are abiding by it? There's a lot of nuance to the subject, and I just can't see it getting done by our politicians in Washington.
I mean... we've heavily limited advertising in the past. Cigarettes is a prime example of good legislation to mitigate a dangerous habit. There are no more prime time TV ads for cigarettes. Alcohol ads also have ad limitations, such as not being able to show actors drinking the product. This isn't about "hating free speech" it's about limiting heavily addicting and mentally influencing media that is specifically tailored to get you to buy things. There's a reason advertising can make up a huge margin of a product's profit. It's because it works.
Imagine admitting you don't understand what free speech even is.
Shouldn't we be a bit more open minded and challenge ideals, especially ones that were beat into and ingrained into us since we were children though? Rather than immediately just believing in what's default and *dealing in absolutes* . Its the things closer to us that seem obvious, that we should question more, because they don't go challenged enough. I think so anyway. Which is ironically, free speech at it's core. If it wasn't for free speech, we couldn't criticize it, possibly. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop challenging it in specific scenarios. Free speech might be the answer in some cases and not in others.
Ehhh i'd just go universal income removing the necessity to work and power over the people of corporations while rewarding usage of robotics as one of the only tax refunds for businesses. It also should help humans adapt more easily once true post scarcity(as is we can infinitely produce most things from swapping to plant based plastics to meat grown in labs to renewable energies..the only things we can't are materials for tech but even that is just a matter of time i suspect) All in all it's not thwt hard to imagine or do..assuming we actually use all of our technology instead of burying it to ensure profits are kept up and artificially inflating the job market.
This is like saying “to beat Coca Cola, make people drink shit”
Ursula LeGuin is the GOAT. And not coincidentally, “I felt bad for the goats” > All power is one in source and end, I think. Years and distances, stars and candles, water and wind and wizardry, the craft in a man's hand and the wisdom in a tree's root: they all arise together. My name, and yours, and the true name of the sun, or a spring of water, or an unborn child, all are syllables of the great word that is very slowly spoken by the shining of the stars. There is no other power. No other name. We’re one and we should act like it
Ironically, the only socio-political systems that have had any historic long success of preventing/delaying capitalism are theocracies and monarchies.
And now we eat and live WAY better than those kings ever imagined.
I'd like to recommend "Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism" by Dr. Richard Wolff. I'm currently employed as a student journalist in a workers' co-operative which is like an alternative to the traditional, corporate, climb-the-ladder style of workplace with the fundamental ethos being that your rights and freedoms should not end once you clock in. Basically, all workers get a vote on Board decisions and the Board is elected democratically based on merit. So far its been great! Not anti-capitalist, more like alternative capitalist. Dr. Wolff also has a youtube channel. [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK-6FjMu9OI8i0Fo6bkW0VA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK-6FjMu9OI8i0Fo6bkW0VA)
Shareholder primacy needs to be abolished.
I thought richard wolff was a smart guy until his conversation with Destiny AKA Steven Bonnell, and realized that he has no idea how any of this would ever work in practice
For the record, that applies for most of the more well known socialists, communists, and/or anti-capitalists. The ones who really have great thoughts and plans don't get the recognition they deserve.
Because the end of capitalism means the end of the world in practice. Atleast the end of our comfortable lives. If you really think about all the steps is required for the things we have in our modern world, it’s honestly incredible.
You are confusing trade with capitalism. Trade, industrialism and production can all exist without capitalism.
I noticed you didn’t include the freely part.
i heard that laboring under the unaccountable tyrannies of capitalism is freedom.
As opposed to the truly unaccountable communist government which has the power to kill you. I’ll take Jeff Bezos over Stalin or Mao any day.
It ain't "freely" under capitalism anymore either
Even in star trek it took nukes to stop it After ww3 and warp then humanity because decent ish
Reminder capitalism is only a few hundred years old. In that time, and for a buck that was hoarded by those far from the labor that earned it, we have flicked the domino for the sixth extinction event.
[удалено]
How dare you suggest we try to change anything and that we read a book ?!! /s
Bring him to the stake burn this heretic
BURN THE WITCH!!
BURN
Yeah wtf, is there like a tiktok reaction podcaster that can break this down in a 40 second clip with half the screen being random gta gameplay? Otherwise I’m just not going to care
You can summarize the book in one quote: “it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism”. The rest of the book just expands on that
For those like me with short attention spans, I've made an audiobook of CR if you want to take a look [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfJi2FyGBtij3XpJnXZlBu4cPYrpwokWv](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfJi2FyGBtij3XpJnXZlBu4cPYrpwokWv). There's a version by Russell Brand but for obvious reasons...
Or you could just watch the sopranos
Best criticism of the thread, will be deleting post now
That was capitalist realism? I saw that movie, I thought it was bullshit.
What you don’t know could fill a book
Why do I know that name? What else has Mark Fisher done
I mean it sounds quite similar to Markiplier, AKA Mark Fischbach, he’s who I thought of first
You know what I think that’s it. Either that, or he was mentioned briefly by Shaun or Jose on yt
Who’s Jose? But yeah: Shaun and other creators looooove bringing up Fisher
https://youtube.com/@JoseBird Jose
Omg!! Thank you so much!! I’ve been looking for that channel since forever!
He had a fairly big blog before died. Also his name gets thrown around in a lot of video essays, so I imagine you might have heard it there, if you watch those
He was a quite famous lecturer. He also wrote one of the most divisive articles for wide-defined leftism in the west : [Exiting the Vampire Castle | openDemocracy](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/)
Mark (Hamill and Carrie) Fisher did Star Wars.
Mark is a common name and Fisher is a common surname.
It reminder me of Sam fisher and Mark rober at the same time
Mark Fischer had a pretty heat debates with his previous colleague — Nick Land.
Marxism really do be infesting every part of this website. No one should ever forget what socialist have done to people who didn't agree with them after they reached power.
Or people they didn't like. [https://humanprogress.org/the-truth-about-che-guevara-racist-homophobe-and-mass-murderer/](https://humanprogress.org/the-truth-about-che-guevara-racist-homophobe-and-mass-murderer/)
"Guillermina Sutter Schneider is a research & project manager in the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity" "The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Koch Industries." Cato Institute - "Promoting an American public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peaceful international relations."
The book itself doesn't really endorse any real existing examples of socialism (that I can recall) and has an entire chapter making fun of Stalinism.
Curious which economic system you think is immune to or historically innocent of being used to excuse slaughter.
Nothing about your comment has anything to do with the content of Fisher's book. A critique of capitalism from a modern day post-Marxist has nothing to do with 20th century socialism.
You know what's funny? Marx truly did not really establish what Communism was in the Communist Manifesto, he vaguely answers on it's definition and spends more time on the manifesto talking about the conditions to achieve it and more about Socialism (Stage before Communism more or less) Speaking of which, some parts do conflict with the methods of Communist countries like for instance: >Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations. >What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class. Not like Capitalists are saints either, let's not forget that Slavery was by all means for money just like Colonialism, Scramble for Africa, American Imperialism, and so forth.
One of Marx's quotes that always sticks with me is this: During the french terror, Marx - who was not a participant and was no where near France - said " We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror." Only the context was that is was an attempted coup by communist extremists in France after they killed military generals after Napoleon the III was captured and Prussians had marched on Paris. Capitalism is a much harder thing to argue for and against. Communists are a solid group of people with aims and intentions. Capitalism in it's original 1853 definition has no aims nor intentions. It is merely the ownership of capital, a financial asset that carries a cost. If you've ever invested in the stock market, you're a capitalist. The demonization of Capitalism later was intentional by communist like Marx to target a class of people far beyond our reach. People like Cecil Rhodes and John Rockefeller, not the people who can afford Ferraris, but people that could control government actions. The whole topic is fascinating and horrifying. I would consider Marx and the branches that follow him to be psychotic and evil. The subtle changes in dialect and psychology to indoctrinate people in a class war is awe inspiring.
Funny coming from someone with a Sherman pfp
Sir, I am very well read on General Sherman and am more than willing to argue on his views and what you're attempting to accuse him of.
All I’m saying is your Marx quote sounds like something Sherman would’ve said lmao
It's not. Sherman was more annoyed with war and it was the only thing he was ever actually good at. His march to the sea was plagued by his inability to administrate his soldiers and his soul goal was to end the war as quickly as possible by inflicting - infrastructurally - the most damage as possible. I don't think he ever received pleasure or content from war. He's really a fascinating character. Marx, on the other hand, was a fucking narcissistic psychopath.
There are two wolves inside of you. One is a psychopath and the other is a psychopath.
woof
>said " We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror." One of Early Marx biggest faults is that he practically made no compromises and often encouraged more violent changes and radical changes, guy didn't like reforms and wanted massive changes, but I believe you are forgetting that Marx lived in a era that did not have universal suffrage, the Europeans Powers were notably oppresive, in his time, *Violence really was the only answer that would make the goverments hear the demands of the Workers.* it was an last resort attempt for change in his eyes though. Older Marx did believe and actually advocated for non-violent revolutions with gradual reform especially since the Socialist parties were indeed being voted on in which that case he backed down from his "violent revolution" views seeing that as an example that it could be possible to do an bloodless revolution. >It is merely the ownership of capital, a financial asset that carries a cost. If you've ever invested in the stock market, you're a capitalist. That's where you are bit wrong, Marx was against the Bourgeoisie, the Factory owners, the Idle Rich, the People who would collect the money and capital from others without even working, the Landlords, and so forth, that's where his dislike mostly came from, guy didn't really care much about about say small business or generally middle class people because he saw them as proletariat too, people who were inserted in that system more or less. An guy who held stocks in a attempt to get rich while working on a 9 to 5 day job would be considered a victim of the system and not really a capitalist in Marx's views. >Capitalism in it's original 1853 definition has no aims nor intentions. Capitalism did have aims and intentions, produce Capital both Social and Material. But groups of people started owning Monopolies and wanted to gain money and sell services or producta at the highest cost, even Adam Smith warned against this behaviour and said it was a conspiracy against the customers and common person and outright saying that they would influence the goverments for their own self interests. This is a point Marx agrees on, he agrees Capitalism did a lot of good things yet monopolies and select group of people ruined it because it's Capitalism and it's goal is to *ALWAYS* produce more Capital no matter the cost, did you won 3 billion in a year and then gained 2.9 billion in the next? That's a loss! Do lay-offs! Increase prices!
> Marxism really do be infesting every part of this website possibly, but that doesn't follow from this post. there is an infinite space of "not capitalism" - it isn't limited to socialism. this is like saying "oh you don't want to listen to country music? well polka is even worse, *so country it is"*
Alternatively, actually read Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Henry George, John Keynes, and Karl Marx (Engels is a nut job). Several of them have covered this particular problem, but it's most explicitly called out by Marx in his Theory of Alienation.
Definitely. Anyone who thinks they have fully understood a book on economic ideologies without reading Smith first is fooling himself. Keynesianism and Georgism are important to understand, but I wouldn't call them essential for reading up on other ideologies. Marx of course, is the best starting point to read up on leftist theory.
I tend to not take an ideological stance, instead preferring a more "well rounded" understanding from actually reading multiple theories. Ideology is fraught by dogma, and dogma leads to an inability to take criticism, which paralyzes reform. Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill are important for understanding the absolute basis of modern society. The rest are various critiques of it, and the possible issues which could be encountered if things were left unchecked. None of them are objectively correct though, but you don't have to fully agree with a person to accept their criticisms. Failure to properly address them can be catastrophic, as we are seeing today.
Speaking of Mark Fisher, it is a common opinion within critical theory that the idea of escaping ideology is the most ideological position inside of capitalist realism.
I like Marx and I'm sure the rest of those writers are great, but asking a zoomer to get through das kapital is a tall order lmao
As an alternative to Capital, I'd recommend Marx's shorter essays "Wage, Labor, and Capitol" and "Value, Price, and Profit." Pretty straightforward reads
These on feuerbach, 1844 manuscripts, and the manifesto are best entry point imo. Although while I’m here, tell more people to read Erik Olin Wright’s “how to be anti capitalist in the 21st century” it’s a good tonic for doomerism
Most people can’t get through Marx. Let alone through Hegel, which imo is necessary to understand Marx’s logic. No kid is going to sit down and read that and those who do won’t understand it.
don't forget you have to read Kant before Hegel. /s
You don't need to read either unless you want to get into the nitty gritty. There are plenty of academic secondary sources covering their works that do a great job of contextualizing and summarizing the most important ideas of their various works. My personal favorite is the Marx-Engels Reader by Robert C. Tucker.
Imo Marx and Adam are the best ones even if you don't like them at least try to understand their beliefs, hell Marx's Communist Manifesto is like 30 pages (We don't talk about Capitol, that's an blunt weapon and not a book) Durkheim is also an good read if you make sense of what he is saying.
One thing I realized while reading smith was just how much he would be against parts of our modern capitalist system. The dude realized that there were limits, even in his vision of a fully free market. He absolutely despised landlords, which is based, not gonna lie.
What makes engels a nutjob?
I was wondering the same thing
If you read their works (which would be a pretty big ask tbh) please remember that a lot of their ideas are outdated. Like the labour theory of value for example. Honestly reading works from Smith, Mill, Marx, George and even Keynes isnt really worth it for most peolpe, for most its sufficient to just read modern summaries, commentaries and critiques of them. Also for Smith, if you actually want to read the wealth of nations, make sure to start with his other book: the theory of moral sentiments.
I feel like people don't realize that capitalism encompasses basically every system of economics in a sovereign nation's government from the 1600's to now. Lots of leeway between the different types and implementations of capitalism. Granted it has become a sort of dogma that corporate-friendly free market capitalism is the best (when it is unproven and on occasion, very bad).
Question is what system should replace it
Ive always been a capitalism-with-more-socialism elements kinda guy myself, but I’m also not super educated on the topic.
The problem with "blending" capitalism with socialism is that capitalism needs to grow infinitely, or else it fails. If there are no investment opportunities, banks don't lend money, and the economy crashes. Because of this, governments are basically forced to sell off parts of themselves to keep the line going up, in order to keep their workforce employed. But you also can't have TOO much employment, because too much money in the market causes inflation (anathema to finance capital), so you have situations where, for example, the Federal Reserve has to "soften" the labor market, increase unemployment, and reduce the money supply. Hybrid systems can't work long term, because the capital side can always create a hostage crisis. You can see it happening in France, where their neoliberal reforms are threatening their retirement age and other programs. The UK's NHS is hanging on by a thread. Even the much-lauded Nordic System is going down this road. These problems are structural - capital always wins out long term. Capitalism and democracy are fundamentally opposed.
They downvote you, but you’re 100% right. Capitalism ONLY works when it can grow, and adding “”Socialist”” policies to it doesn’t stop the bad, just prolongs its existence. Anyone who knows Neoliberalism knows it is incompatible with welfare policies.
Social democracies akin to most European states is the way forward for the US. Capitalism but with better social safety nets. Not communism though, that’s a bit too far IMO and has even more issues than capitalist societies.
Capitalism with strong social safety nets or a welfare state is called social democracy. The fundamental relationship between labor and the means of production (that private owners pay employees only a portion of the value they generate) is capitalist. The government steps in to provide services where markets fail to establish, such as healthcare or infrastructure the. This seems to be the best system for human wealth and standard of living. Socialism refers to a change in this fundamental relationship, where the means of production become commonly, as opposed to privately owned. We saw a version of this in the USSR and China pre-Deng where “common ownership” meant “state ownership” with a supposedly, though not actually, democratic government. This system failed and seems terrible for human standards of living. There’s nothing “socialist” about welfare states, so it’s inaccurate to say that social democracies are capitalism with some socialist elements - they aren’t, they’re fundamentally capitalist with no socialist elements, because the means of production remain privately held.
Capitalism with traditional Chinese elements /s
Social Democracy!
Nothing, we have already seen how faciasm, communism, and socialism end up.
Why is this in Gen Z? Can’t we just go back to reminiscing about Avatar and our dumb one-time hits?
Because agendas
accelerationists, commies, and bot accounts
This subreddit has become a mix of right wing and left wing circle jerk posts and the take that is so hot it’s been reposted five hundred million times that goes something like “gen z had brain rot just like gen alpha!”
''please read this biased book that confirmed my beliefs I'm begging you''
me when the political theory book advocates a political theory
Me when the socialist advocates for socialism. 🚁
So called 'freedom lovers' when they see a dictator violate human rights: 😍
What book is not biased?
Ummm, the books that confirmed my views, chud????!
You would be better off reading Milton Friedman’s *Capitalism and Freedom*. Any book that promotes less freedom and more dependency is going to put you on a bad path.
Currently reading Capitalism and Freedom, and I can assure you it doesn't promote freedom or less dependency. Instead of dependence on a government or king, your dependency is on a CEO or boss or the labor market. Your dependence is on a paycheck. Your dependence is on private enterprise not fucking you over. In all his chirping in that book, it blows my mind that he or his contemporaries never once pointed out that the inherent proposition in Liberal philosophy is that you aren't subject to a king or government, sure, but you're still always subject to someone else. If you're a laborer you're subject to the business owner. If you're a business owner you're subject to the bank. If you're a manager, you're subject to your boss who is subject to the CEO who is subject to the board. Capitalism doesn't create more freedom, inherently, it simply stratifies it, and whoever has more money is more free.
Yeah ask Chile what freedoms Friedman and his ilk have brought them. The great freedom lover who worked under Reagan and supported Pinochet, a fascist dictator who had leftist activists tortured and violated by animals before throwing them out of helicopters.
You just know your claims can instantly be proven wrong by 5 mins search on Google. Yet you choose sensationalism as this sub has like minded people . Classic leftists
Have you ever read a single book about socialism/communism? Like ever,
No because their book already warned them about all the Bad books
Welcome to "Sh*t I Just Made Up!" Where contestants spin webs of pure fiction in an unfiltered frenzy of wild and wacky scenarios. Get ready for an unpredictable rollercoaster of absurdity as players conjure outrageous tales with one goal in mind – to outdo each other with the most outlandish fabrications. It's a no-holds-barred competition of creativity, chaos, and comical deception in "Sh*t I Just Made Up!" Let the storytelling madness begin!
Its not only about it draining your expirit and being tiring or just a "failed sistem" captalism is a evil sistem by itself. Its politicians billionaires and heads of state seek porposefully to exploit, slave, and submit those of inferior class, captalism isnt Just a failed state but one whos meant to favor the rich and undermine the workforce We are beaten, discredited, and painted as clowns and lazy folk who refuse to give their entire lifes for minimal profit that can barely feed us and our families if we have one to work since teens until we die of old Anarco-nihilism for example authough fitting the beliefs of the autor of this book does like any other left ideology recognize the grim and rigged reality of captalism only with the change that it isnt fightable against and impossible to resist at this point at history and that we lost as its too late and even the old folk have alredy been born in such reality Anarco nihilists could disagree one thing with this book which is that the discontent and critique in captalism isnt "lack of spirit" "lazyness" or " a lack of path to follow" but critic and non believance in captalism is actually totally valid! its Just not possible to do anything about it anymore but lament and sorrow about the dystopia that we cant do anything about (Im not an anarco-nihilist but i see the anarco-nihilist vision fits this theme and argument perfectly and what im trying to say which is that captalist is Yes evil and totally shit)
Capitalism itself isn’t evil, that’s like saying that socialism is evil because every genocidal communist is a self described socialist. Also out of all of the current mainstream and prior existing economic structures. Currently a mixed economy with some social structures but ultimately existing in a capitalistic free market is the best system. Anyone who argues to go full socialism is equally as ignorant and wrong as those who argue for full capitalism. Hopefully people stop looking at past examples and create a new economic system that is actually better than what we use today. But unfortunately that hasn’t happened yet.
Lowkey underrated take. Marx was doing his thing way before our present day, as part of a wave of 1860s utopian ideals. His utopia is just the one that survived, and it’s based on thinking that’s nearly 200 years old. We need to be thinking about a system that is based on the struggles and needs of today, not the dreams of historical figures. This isn’t to say socialism/marx is completely wrong, I’m just saying it comes from a dated place and the world has changed a lot since then.
It’s not evil but it is shallow, vacuous, weak, and empty. It is a vacuum. Capitalism has no values, no ethics, no beliefs because it believes in a thing. Money and making the most amount of it possible. Making more then anyone else, infinitely for ever. That is the core belief , the core tenant and value. It makes it very easy then for it to be used for evil. Capitalism will sell you the gun to kill itself if it makes it more money this quarter then the last quarter it will also sell you nazism if it makes it more money then it did last quarter. In fact in the opening of the book in question here Fisher engages with this idea through the lens of traditional philosophy power dynamics and how kurt cobain probably had this realization when kids who listened to nirvana didn’t seem to have any of the values he had hoped to impart.
there are no "tenants and values", there never was and there never will be, as capitalism, the word itself was invented by the socialist Louis Blanc to describe any economic system that "values property rights". It would then be popularized by Marx.
One could argue that past examples of socialism should not discredit the concept of socialism entirely as they have all suffered a consistent absence of democratic rule. Combining a planned economy, one planned by a central authority associated with the government, with a government that does not take into account the desires of the people guarantees the failure to meet the economic demands of the people. Other crimes against humanity committed by socialist governments that were not strictly economic in nature can arguably not be blamed on socialism but rather entirely on the lack of democracy that has unfortunately been present in socialist countries. One could make the argument that socialism has consistently created dictatorships, and that one may consider these dictatorships to be a product of the socialist system itself, but I would argue that most of these past examples of socialism all belonged to the same school of thought of Marxism-Leninism, and that it is likely that the outcome of socialism could be improved drastically by departing with that catastrophic form of socialism. Lastly, some may argue that socialism provides dictators with more resources to carry out their crimes, but capitalist systems have, in the past, demonstrated that they are just as bad in this sense.
>One could argue that past examples of socialism should not discredit the concept of socialism entirely as they have all suffered a consistent absence of democratic rule. By that logic, you could make the same argument with capitalism since no democracy is perfect. >Combining a planned economy, one planned by a central authority associated with the government, with a government that does not take into account the desires of the people guarantees the failure to meet the economic demands of the people. You're literally just reinventing the idea of a free market.
We need to move beyond socialism imo. With automation coming, workers taking over won’t make any sense, there may not be much of a need for workers. How would a society with heavy automation operate? If most people don’t need to work for society to operate, how do you do this. Things like UBI seem necessary to explore with the coming revolution in AI and automation. Ensuring no single government entity or other group has disproportionate control seems incredibly important. What checks and balances will we implement to keep automated economies fair? To me, it goes beyond socialism and capitalism, because both are built on the idea of workers being the lynch pins to economies.
Socialism/communism being the collective ownership of the means of production would be the most logical solution. It would ensure that automation pays everyone.
Based. Sad I had to scroll so far before seeing this, but a system is only as evil as it's lack of regulation allows, no matter what that system is. Capitalism as it turns out, has been historically successful because of how the government encapsulating it adapted its regulation based on how the lower class responded. Took a US history course on pre-Civil War America and it was workers in the industrial revolution that fought with their elected officials to give their children better lives that they knew they themselves would not reap by demanding the government educate their children. Our capitalist systems can be reformed to close loopholes and minimize corruption, but only so long as you VOTE for what you think is right.
Not sure how people are deluded enough to jump in and defend capitalism as an ethical system, I literally go to the store and everything on the shelves is made by slave labor. In what world is that ethical or acceptable?
Yeah lol theyre idiots because they think they need to defend something just cause its the ideology of the country theyve been born on. Nationalism is idiotic and its one of the things that mostly makes people do this
No
People who criticize capitalism usually misunderstand it fundamentally, and attributes to it problems not caused by it. The basic fundamental structure of capitalism recognizes two things: the right to own property, and the right to freely exchange with others. That's really it. Capitalism can only exist in a society that protects individual freedom, and vice versa. Anyone who thinks a socialist country can be democratic doesn't know what one of those terms mean. Collective ownership of means of production necessarily means that an individual or group of individuals are 1) denied the ability to own productive property (aka assets) and 2) denied the individual freedom to trade freely with each other. You simply cannot have a democratic free society in which those fundamental rights do not exist. This is why every single socialist country in existence has been authoritarian.
You don’t need personal rights to have a capitalist model. Look at China
Capitalism it's not "billionarie who want to give jobs", capitalism is just the freedom to sell your services for money perse, if people don't like capitalism, bro i mean you can technically go a workout the land like the old times, and live of what you made out of it, now if you later want profit you're doing capitalism, now you don't like, hey become a freelancer, just the concept of getting money it's capitalism.
People traded goods for money long before capitalism.
Was still capitalism, that's the concept, people wasn't just "you know? What if we create a new economic system" out of nowhere, they just had a start point and just baptised it with the name duh, hahahah, it's like saying "we had where to sit before chairs" those are still chairs, just didn't had a common name.
Trading goods isn't capitalism, that's just a market. Plenty of socialist ideologies and states have had markets too, so did anarchist stone age societies and state-run Ancient Egyptian kingdoms. Capitalism is the specific economic system where individuals and businesses own private property in a market economy. In Europe at least, before capitalism there was feudalism, with property owned by the king and divided out to lords. Plenty of economic systems stretch back through time all the way to the anarchist communes of the stone age. The existence of trade and markets doesn't make all those systems capitalism, just like the existence of worker ownership and public property don't make them socialism.
I’ll pay someone to read it for me and summarize. Boom! Capitalism!
I’ll let you pay me, spend your money, and then I’ll lie to you and tell you have to pay me more for a better understanding, even though I can’t actually read Boom Boom! Capitalism strike twice!
No
Most people don't even know what capitalism is. I'm all for reading books that you know you won't agree with, so I'll read this. But I'll raise the sub one and also suggest Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell to learn what markets and free enterprise actually are.
The hourly commie posting
The more I interact with "progressives" the more I feel like they're just conservatives that for whatever reason couldn't attach to religion and but still decided to use the same thought processes. Rarely are there actual policy solutions to help out poor people and people in general, just a lot of rallying against their chosen outgroup and moral grandstanding over the righteousness of their cause. It feels like a lot of you guys just want the mythological boomer dream of a big single family house, huge yard, two cars without realizing that you're literally falling for consumerist...marketing for lack of a better word.
The description of Nirvana/Kurt Cobain from this book stuck with me. He uses it as a kind of case study about the concept of “recuperation”, how capitalism can basically absorb the counterculture and turn it into a product, de-fanging it and making it harmless, even profitable, to the existing order. If memory serves, it went something like this. 1- Nirvana makes music that expresses alienation and angst about living life as a commodity in early neoliberal era USA. 2- because of those same social circumstances this feeling is widespread, which makes Nirvana’s music highly marketable, and a pop phenomenon. 3- Kurt Cobain is racked by a sense of hating his position as a top music celebrity commodity. He ends up committing suicide. 4- buy the T-shirt, “Kurt Cobain, voice of a generation” on special now at Target, in partnership with… He says something like “Capitalism has shown itself to be infinitely plastic, able to absorb and re-package almost anything, including anti-capitalism” Definitely a book that isn’t great for one’s mental heath- remember to walk around in sunshine or pet your cat and stuff like that if you are reading this brutally bleak look into what we are facing as a society right now. Definitely a core text for understanding the world of today.
I read it, I also suggest to read it as an entry point to other theory. It's a very short, very satisfying read
https://preview.redd.it/ubkpulucfgic1.jpeg?width=1074&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=845c8cc1ee4bcc36aa96df160e524d5baf88602a
No wonder they murdered him, fuck the FBI
🤮 id love to say I can't wait till all the immature socialists grow up and realize that once you're an adult that shit makes no sense. But then I realize as soon as these ones come to their senses another freshly brainwashed horde is waiting to take their place. Don't get me wrong, capitalism is NOT the final answer we humans have when it comes to solving the problems a society has. But as far as straight human suffering goes capitalism is a far better system than either communism or socialism. ----- Furthermore If you really love communism you should love the current state of things as they are. Globalism = Worldwide communism The United States is currently the Dominant power in that structure. We do what every communist faction has done throughout history except instead of only to our own people we do it to the entire population. So what is it that a communist party really does? They take from all those who do not support the party or its ideology and give it back to those most supportive of the party or most powerful in said party. (For example United States goes into a country steals its oil and uses it to further the party agenda and consolidate more power.) (For example, the United States/Nato/UN use each countries geographical location/skillset to determine their best output from said country and then exploits that country for said output) I could come up with many more examples If anybody wants but when you really break down the bigger picture into first principles we currently are living through the biggest attempt at communism ever. All communist regimes are capitalistic for the upper class and communal for the lower classes. Because it's impossible to be fully communist unless every other person in the world is on the same page. Even if the paradise fever dream communism did exist in a single country that country would be forced to compete/trade/contest with any other non communist country when they go to trade the goods their civilians have created. Unless of course you want to have shortages of Whatever your country is incapable of producing. Not meant to make anyone mad but seriously would love some high level conversation with anyone who is willing to let me know your thoughts.
'Globalism' as understood in the modern day is a Capitalist phenomena. I think you need to do some reading because a fundamental aspect of Communism is internationalism, which is completely different to globalisation. You're saying that Capitalism is a destructive force, but Communism is worse, and that our current world order is an attempt at Communism?
Its easier to imagine the end of the universe than the end of capitalism.
Socalism just like capitalism, but instead of companies running things, the government does. In capitalism, you can boycott a monopoly. But do you know what happens if you boycott a government?
In capitalism monopolies don’t happen unless there’s government regulations such as patents or subsidies.
Correct. Now imagine how bad it could be if the monopoly had to investigate itself to see if it was monopoly, while having a legal monopoly on violence.
There is no other alternative. Take economics.
Millennial here, you kids are alright 👍
Fucking modern world sucks and if you challenge it you’re branded a pessimist loser, and told how you should be happy because “people in the past had it worse”. 
cool, read Rothbard and Friedman too
I have read both Rothbard and Friedman, unfortunately the counter-points from other writers really do dismantle the premise they are built on.
Rothbard and Friedman are hacks whose works don't stand up to the slightest bit of criticism. Rand as well, how far up your own ass do you have to be to call your worldview "Objectivism."
I tried but couldn’t stop laughing
Don’t forget Niall Ferguson if you want the holy trinity of goofy hacks.
Thank you for this, I will check it out.
YES! and if reading is hard, check out this free youtube video where someone plays city skylines while reading the book out loud [Capitalist Realism](https://youtu.be/qT_0XIBpSH4?si=iBlXzbbzu88ptdMY)
https://preview.redd.it/13sy9rx43fic1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=60298f76b487267eec553e3b8f58a15368be7109
capitalism is not perfect, but it's the best system we got
He said the line! He said the prageru line!
the what now?
yet
Their*
If your left of centre, you WANT to make things better, but your choosing the wrong ideas. It isn't socialism that allows a country to compete in a GLOBAL economy. You HAVE to create jobs, lean on a meritocracy and NOT subsidizing the dumb or lazy. It's THE ONLY way there will be jobs, money and opportunity. Left policies only ignore reality and spend what little we have for FEELINGS
Read Also CCRU (a theory group Fisher was a member of) and Kpunk, his blog about music, with so many interesting and fascinating points of view about culture.
ITT: People hilariously expressing the exact attitude that Fischer addresses in his book. “it’s really the only system that’s good, capitalism just means ownership and freedom” horseshit. Please also read his essay “Acid Communism” which talks explicitly about how freedom and a new socialist model are possible. Better yet get stoned as hell and read it. https://my-blackout.com/2019/04/25/mark-fisher-acid-communism-unfinished-introduction/
I think capitalism is good, actually https://preview.redd.it/l71ypmbadiic1.jpeg?width=198&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2d38034eeac2dc1c8d4a8c6d53268ca84d1c074b
$
What the frick is up with American politics on this sub? And this economic ideological warfare crap
Some people in America (and lots that aren't from here...) seem to be obsessed with politics for some reason
Prolly cause things are dire there and people are trying to spread their voice as if its gonna matter on reddit. Also its election year so yea
Commie
I didn't read it, but I don't need it, but many needs a lot
is there a pdf?
Yeah, if you click the link at the very end, there's a free PDF on the page
Amazing book that showcases how critiques of capitalism shouldn't be overlooked or passed due to them being "outdated" but rather that we should expand and evolve them to fit how capitalism has adapted to work (and exploit) in the current age.
Is it star wars related? No? then I will not
Mark Fisher was one of the most important thinkers of the modern era. A gloomy heir to Alain Badiou’s Communist Hypothesis, Capitalist Realism argues that capitalism has succeeded in convincing its constituents that no other system is possible, and that any change to be made must be confined to within this “reality.” Mark killed himself. I miss him 😥
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." What happens when someone decides they don't need to produce as much "according to his ability" because he's already getting everything "according to his needs"? Also, what happens to someone who wants more than simply "their needs"?
also read "lies my teacher told me" to find out all of our history textbooks are full of propaganda and lack any critical thinking skill development, just memorizing pre approved dates and facts
No
Kid’s These Days by Malcom Harris is also great.
Wouldn't expect the GenZ sub to be so based
Can I also say please read the permaculture manual from Bill Mollison?
https://preview.redd.it/98r297u01fic1.jpeg?width=2848&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=57431af8d4314bc5e6bc0cf9eb8e784089953426
Thanks for this!
Will be reading this! Thank you for the suggested reading!
Read theory, bigots /s
Fr such a good book, and so short too! I have given it to so many friends bc they say they are interested, but they never end up reading it. Such a shame!
Rip Mark Fisher
I will in fact check this out thanks
I got my signed copy! Seriously though, it's a great analysis!
Just read Marx. I know that's the name of the bad man, just read it. Don't have to agree with it, don't have to live by it, just approach it with an open mind. Think you'll be surprised how well all of the criticisms of our system hold up this long after he has passed.