Five minutes of hate news

[Carrot of Truth]

Yeah but what about the rest of us who didn't do Jack squat? Why should we be forced to drown with the rats for the simple crime of being born into the wrong place at the wrong time?

You're fucked, It sucks but that is just how things are.

 

[TheRejectionist]

 

[AnimalNoodles]

If you've read the post by Lindsey, he goes into this. It's not an argument that the woke right are literal communists, but that they share the same operating system/software. They use grievance stuff, complain about being victims, etc.

Lindsey's argument is that the woke right is doing what fascists did historically: grab some of communism, then slap some rightist propaganda onto it:

Lindsey is a moron. Another liberal who glommed onto the recent moment. Fact is, Marx isnt wrong with his critique of capitalism. Its his solutions (or lack thereof) which are terrible.

He is another atheist liberal who is trying to gatekeep and prevent a systemic critique from the right because he fears and despises Christianity and its potential far more than the marxists with whom he only differs on tactics.

He and his ilk profit from being the perpetual losers of History

 

[Abhorsen]

And if you read what I wrote, you'll see that this is not at all convincing to me, because the text he uses to "prove" it is not woke. Because, as I argued, woke-ism is a specific form of far left bullshit. But as anyone who scores three digits on an IQ test can tell you: just because all [X] is [Y], doesn't mean all [Y] is [X].

Lindsey does, however, implicitly and uncritically assume that.

His definition is therefore so skewed that he can now basically call everything woke.

No, he doesn't. Again, you fail to understand the definition of woke used by Lindsey.

Basically, there are two types of people on the right: those who hate intersectionality because it's a flawed philosophy, or those who accept its fundamentals, but think the wrong people are considered victims. The first type wants to get rid of the boot, the second type want more government and to be wearing the boot.

I have never heard this shit come up naturally, I am 100% certain that it is a false flag operation.

Same. But it's important to call them out so they stay that way. What they want is for R's to glom onto it.

Lindsey is a moron. Another liberal who glommed onto the recent moment. Fact is, Marx isnt wrong with his critique of capitalism. Its his solutions (or lack thereof) which are terrible.

And we can see which side you land on. Capitalism is fundamentally moral. It's the idea that you own yourself, not the state, and thus that you decide who gets the fruits of your labor, not a collective. Marx's critique of Capitalism was that it wasn't collectivist. That's a good thing.

That the moral option aligns with how humans function and thus creates a great society with human flourishing, is, IMO, some of the best evidence for intelligent design of the human mind. Think about it: moral societies cause human flourishing, immoral societies cause the society itself to suffer. It follows the pattern of Old Testament Israel quite well, but more subtly.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

You're fucked, It sucks but that is just how things are.

oh your one of those people. got it.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

oh your one of those people. got it.

One of those people?

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

One of those people?

a blackpiller.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

And we can see which side you land on. Capitalism is fundamentally moral. It's the idea that you own yourself, not the state, and thus that you decide who gets the fruits of your labor, not a collective. Marx's critique of Capitalism was that it wasn't collectivist. That's a good thing.

That the moral option aligns with how humans function and thus creates a great society with human flourishing, is, IMO, some of the best evidence for intelligent design of the human mind. Think about it: moral societies cause human flourishing, immoral societies cause the society itself to suffer. It follows the pattern of Old Testament Israel quite well, but more subtly.

You dont see anything. I have no problem at all with free enterprise. But marx isnt wrong either. His solutions however..they are monstrous and usually involve killing heaps of people. I despise marxism and communism.

But we have seen the fruits of the neoliberal system which optimises for efficiency and profit. Demographic decline, social breakdown, mass immigration, economic dislocation, cultural degradation and growing oligarchy. And the current defenders of the system like Lindsey have no answer to that.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Capitalism is fundamentally moral. It's the idea that you own yourself, not the state, and thus that you decide who gets the fruits of your labor, not a collective.

No, capitalism is the idea that you own stuff to work with, ownership of one's own body is more derived and mostly from independent positions on natural law. Its purpose was justifying profit-sharing by investors, so it absolutely  is about a collective deserving the fruits of your labor, just one defined by the dynamics of partial ownership of the resources used extending to final output.

Hence all the bullshit with company towns, as it's not all that expensive in heavy industry terms to set up quarters for one factory's workforce, which can then be rented out to the workers to reclaim most of their wages. Repeat for all other essential goods and it's trivial to make de-facto debt slaves out of de-jure free men. If you're enough of a dick about it you can even jail those who try to leave for tresspassing.

Yes, this inevitably violates the NAP all over the place, but that is very distant from capitalism itself.

 

[TheRejectionist]

 

[Abhorsen]

You dont see anything. I have no problem at all with free enterprise. But marx isnt wrong either. His solutions however..they are monstrous and usually involve killing heaps of people. I despise marxism and communism.

But we have seen the fruits of the neoliberal system which optimises for efficiency and profit. Demographic decline, social breakdown, mass immigration, economic dislocation, cultural degradation and growing oligarchy. And the current defenders of the system like Lindsey have no answer to that.

No, I do see stuff, things you are blind to. Marx's hatred of capitalism wasn't noble. It was borne out of envy and spite. It was borne out of the idea that 'collectivism is good, actually, and individualism sucks'. His critique of Capitalism is wrong.

Arguing that the system should be optimized for anything by some higher power like a government is fundamentally a communist mentality. This is why I call Tucker Carlson a socialist: because he believes the same way you do. That people should be controlled by an external source (government) for some common good, as opposed to being left alone to do what they will. The system is not optimized for efficiency by the government (in fact, the opposite is true). The system naturally self orders itself towards efficiency when individuals left alone. The idea that one has the right to interfere with such individuals who are neither stealing nor defrauding is morally equivalent to "Stealing is morally right" or "Murder is morally right", depending on the type of interference.

"Optimizing" the system in pursuit of some other goal gives the reigns over to communists and people who think like them: those that don't trust the individual and instead prioritize some greater good while trampling over morality.

BTW, this is the best angle to take with actual communists: argue that communism is fundamentally immoral. Arguing that it won't work gets you nowhere. Argue that even if it did work, it would be evil.

No, capitalism is the idea that you own stuff to work with, ownership of one's own body is more derived and mostly from independent positions on natural law. Its purpose was justifying profit-sharing by investors, so it absolutely  is about a collective deserving the fruits of your labor, just one defined by the dynamics of partial ownership of the resources used extending to final output.

The idea that you own your output comes from the idea that you own your body. Capitalism's core idea as a moral system is that you own your own body, and thus what it produces is also yours. This comes from John Locke's idea about the creation of property, i.e. the labor theory of property (very different from the labor theory of value, btw).

So no, it isn't about profit sharing based on investors. The purpose of capitalism (lower case) doesn't really exist, it's the natural state of man to exchange stuff for other things of value in a market economy, and to build businesses. We've made it more complex over time to allow for more complicated trades, but at it's core, even barter is capitalism (free exchange of goods). The point of Capitalism (upper case) is the moral justification for that.

Hence all the bullshit with company towns, as it's not all that expensive in heavy industry terms to set up quarters for one factory's workforce, which can then be rented out to the workers to reclaim most of their wages. Repeat for all other essential goods and it's trivial to make de-facto debt slaves out of de-jure free men. If you're enough of a dick about it you can even jail those who try to leave for tresspassing.

Yes, this inevitably violates the NAP all over the place, but that is very distant from capitalism itself.

Only that isn't at all Capitalism in the moral sense, because Capitalism in the moral sense is intrinsically linked to the NAP. Now a capitalist (in the sense of owning a business) can do this, and may even set it up to be legal, but there are scum in all systems. One key lie of Marx is to criticize the morality of Capitalism by pointing at those who flagrantly violate it (i.e. capitalists who are not Capitalists) and saying that they are bad, and then applying that to Capitalism instead of capitalism.

 

[TheRejectionist]

@Abhorsen to me it seems that @AnimalNoodles and @Morphic Tide have an issue with monopolistic capitalism rather than capitalism as whole.

 

[Abhorsen]

@Abhorsen to me it seems that @AnimalNoodles and @Morphic Tide have an issue with monopolistic capitalism rather than capitalism as whole.

Exactly. They are falling into the trap Marx left: that a critique of a capitalist is a valid critique of the moral system of Capitalism. In short, they hate Marx not because he is wrong on a deep fundamental level, but because Marx's 'solution' is different from their 'solution'. Capitalism is in fact moral.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Exactly. They are falling into the trap Marx left: that a critique of a capitalist is a valid critique of the moral system of Capitalism. In short, they hate Marx not because he is wrong on a deep fundamental level, but because Marx's 'solution' is different from their 'solution'. Capitalism is in fact moral.

And your trap is assuming that marx got nothing right. That leads you down the of of simply rejecting his critique in its entirely w/o understanding it beyond expropriation and planned economies (both of which i vehemently dislike) and doubling down on oligarchy and banksterism in response.

Capitalism is nothing more than a system to allocate resources.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

"Stealing is morally right"

They unironically believe that, and have repeatedly done their best to help robbers over capitalists. And they outright admit it's because they hate anyone with money.

First and most important thing you need to understand is that socialists fundamentally think that nobody (except them) should have any wealth, and nobody should have any more wealth than they do. So for them, being rich is inherently illegitimate and people robbing you are heroes/victims. Not that they differentiate between the two...

BTW, the part I put in brackets is never actually said out loud.

 

[Abhorsen]

And your trap is assuming that marx got nothing right. That leads you down the of of simply rejecting his critique in its entirely w/o understanding it beyond expropriation and planned economies (both of which i vehemently dislike) and doubling down on oligarchy and banksterism in response.

Capitalism is nothing more than a system to allocate resources.

No. Capitalism is far more than just a system to allocate resources, it's a moral system that reject the planning of economies and expropriation. Your attempt to deny this, while also claiming you don't like planned economies, is self contradictory. Either you have an unplanned economy (the name for this is free market capitalism btw), or you want to have a goal for the economy (which needs to be enforced by an outside force, which means a planned economy/expropriation).

Free market capitalism is the natural state of the economy, and according to Capitalism, it is the moral state of the economy because of the lack of force.

The woke right, btw? It's real, as ugly as the term is:


Lol. Literally what I pointed out: there are people who will look to Fascism (race communism) to save them from Wokism (gay race communism).

 

[Morphic Tide]

The idea that you own your output comes from the idea that you own your body.

No, because the framing of one's own body as property is incredibly divorced from Locke's foundations as an Englishman.

Only that isn't at all Capitalism in the moral sense, because Capitalism in the moral sense is intrinsically linked to the NAP.

No it isn't, because the NAP is a later formulation from much purer natural law motivated by the desire for a stateless ethical system. While it has a very long history of antecedents, the NAP is the rather recent special case of it as the primary ethical function where those antecedents were subordinate to or in tension with other ethical functions.

Capitalism's core idea as a moral system

Doesn't exist because it was devised an economic system, not a moral one. Locke's formulations pertaining to capitalism have requirements in and implications for ethics, but their purpose is laying out the "proper" way to do business from a proto-economics perspective rather than an all-encompassing model of social organization as you insist it be.

So no, it isn't about profit sharing based on investors.

That's what share-holding is. That's what stock markets are about. It's in the name, "capital" is the stuff not the people. It doesn't encompass all possible market economics because markets can function under different premises. It's the popular form because it's the first formalized and readily justifies handing absurd amounts of power to the merchant class.

One key lie of Marx is to criticize the morality of Capitalism by pointing at those who flagrantly violate it (i.e. capitalists who are not Capitalists) and saying that they are bad, and then applying that to Capitalism instead of capitalism.

Cut the crap with the ivory-tower jargonizing. "Capitalist" is the class of actor operating businesses according to the partial-ownership formulations described by John Lock, because they never accepted the later elaborations dragging it from economics to ethics. I don't accept "go study the theory" from the Marxists, I'm not accepting it from the AnCaps either.

Much of the Marxists' point revolves around the fact that capitalist markets aren't moral actors and so routinely trample rights because there's no preventative, something I very much share. I also utterly fucking despise the idea of shoving absolutely everything into market cycles because the Perennial Gale should not risk famines like the 1920s.

 

[Abhorsen]

No, because the framing of one's own body as property is incredibly divorced from Locke's foundations as an Englishman.

Yes. The origin has it's idea in Locke's concept of property, which later got grabbed by Rothbard, IIRC, and expanded upon.

Cut the crap with the ivory-tower jargonizing. "Capitalist" is the class of actor operating businesses according to the partial-ownership formulations described by John Lock, because they never accepted the later elaborations dragging it from economics to ethics. I don't accept "go study the theory" from the Marxists, I'm not accepting it from the AnCaps either.

The distinguishing between Capitalism as a philosophy and capitalism as just an economic system exists. It's not just jargoning.

That's what share-holding is. That's what stock markets are about. It's in the name, "capital" is the stuff not the people. It doesn't encompass all possible market economics because markets can function under different premises. It's the popular form because it's the first formalized and readily justifies handing absurd amounts of power to the merchant class.

That's part of capitalism, but not core to the idea. The core of the idea is that you own the fruits of your labor (i.e. the capital). This implies that capital (the means of production) are privately owned because they are fruits of labor. What you cite are just corollaries of these.

That you think in terms of class warfare instead says more than you may like. Instead, consider the individual.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

It's real, as ugly as the term is:

And hilarious, because Hitler resulted in half of Germany being taken over by the literal Communists.

Sometimes I wonder whether what they want isn't communists being defeated, but just communists being killed- and brutally.

 

[Morphic Tide]

The origin has it's idea in Locke's concept of property, which later got grabbed by Rothbard, IIRC, and expanded upon.

Which means it's not Locke's works that defined what people actually do on any appreciable scale.

The distinguishing between Capitalism as a philosophy and capitalism as just an economic system exists. It's not just jargoning.

If the capital-C "philosophical Capitalists" making it matter are a rarely-relevant navel-gazing fringe continuously ignored by the economic system since it started being a thing, it very much is.

That's part of capitalism, but not core to the idea. The core of the idea is that you own the fruits of your labor (i.e. the capital). This implies that capital (the means of production) are privately owned because they are fruits of labor. What you cite are just corollaries of these.

These "corollaries" are what distinguishes it from the preceding trade negotiations of Merchantilism.

That you think in terms of class warfare instead says more than you may like. Instead, consider the individual.

Humans do not function as purely selfish atomized individuals according to the vast majority of psychological studies on the matter. Due to the instincts slanting noticeably towards group interests with many of our "self" interest instincts simply being maneuvering within the bounds of the group, we inevitably form up according to such as a coordination heuristic.

As such is the natural behavior of man, any strictly-individualist system predicated on acting otherwise has to expend effort on unnatural means of coordination that its collective-recognizing opposition does not. That is not to say that pure collectivism is correct, but that collectivism will exist no matter how much you dislike it. Because it's just how we work and as such must be engaged with instead of ignored, if only to not waste effort forcing people to organize in active opposition to what's natural.

Capitalism doesn't do that, and the anarchist derivative is plagued by this as the market has absolutely no preventative power. I have mentioned this quite a number of times, and you have never offered an answer to resulting the problem of cutting costs by inflicting externalities. Market corrections and lawsuits do not cure cancer, and as an externality those at fault can trivially end up with their lifetime assets being a miniscule fraction of the cost to make those harmed whole even when there is a full recompense for every problem caused.