/lit/ - Literature

Capitalism =/= private property

>>20716843
>so you see, it's actually cool that BlackRock and BlackStone used their friends in the banks to give them infinite credit to buy housing at above market price and then turn it into multicultural pod-housing and precluding everyone from having their own houses, because birds build nests

https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/FSIQ/
Take it and post results faggot.

>>20716847
Yes it is
Capitalism is private property rights at its basic level.

It's ultimately just an animal function of assigning value to certain objects, which is a basic element of survival, right?
The way Marxists frame capitalism as a great evil that needs to be defeated comes across to me as particularly deranged, to be honest. It seems like misplaced religious sentiment, with "capitalism" taking the place of the devil.

>>20716857
>feudalism was actually capitalist because the king had all the private property and having private property = capitalism
I'll advise everyone to stop participating in the thread, OP is mentally retarded.

>>20716870
Feudalism is not even a meaningful term. Kings did not have all private property. If feudalism means anything it's that the king's ownership is massively decentralized and there are countless freeholders under him with almost sovereign political rights.

>>20716857
Not really, Capitalism is an economic system in which industry and trade is handled and possessed by private entities instead of the state.
That being said, having 80% of the working people in your country pay rent because buying property is way too expensive is a very real scenario under capitalism, I fail to see how that's defending property rights.

>>20716874
>I fail to see how that's defending property rights.
It seems to have something to do with the evolution of birds tho

>>20716874
What if the state is just a larger private entity though.

>>20716886
Pretty much what happens over time in capitalism, huge companies buy smaller companies, monopolies form, a small subset of people amass all the wealth, and the people become slaves to private companies.
Capitalism is a perfect system when it's first implemented, it encourages entrepreneurship, rewards hardwork and generally distributes wealth evenly. But when some time passes, some individuals start getting ahead, and it gets worse and worse.
We have reached a point at which people with masters degrees stay rentoids their entire life (unless they move to the countryside, where they can't find work) because in some cities ownership is simply unattainable for the proletariat.

>>20716938
Is it even a system though? Seems to me like it's just a reality of life. It's what happens over a long enough time scale when people want to amass valuable things for themselves, which people are always going to do.

>>20716958
Where does cooperation fit into your very original and not at all ideologically inculcated view of reality

>>20716854
This. I can't believe this thread. Slaves ontologizing their chains.

>>20716843
Capitalism only exists since Adam Smith.

If you even dare to try to make "property", "taxes", "interest", and other words the meaning of "capitalism", then capitalism has no meaning because everything, from socialism, monarchism, communism, hippyism, crackism, and all the other meme isms have some kind of those words.

The general meaning of capitalism was based around the idea that having specialized workers creates more output than having "general" skilled workers. All other things like "property" and "currency" is just a side effect that makes specializing possible.

For example no human before Adam Smith was really specialized. How should a peasant in Rome specialize? No one was fixing his roof and no one would bother selling him clothes. He had to be average in everything to survive. Capitalism was the first time when humans could specialize without dying because of lacking in other fields.

>>20717011
>For example no human before Adam Smith was really specialized.
Fake and gay

>>20716998
People cooperate for personal gain.

>>20716998
Competition is Cooperation

>>20717002
You can believe those things to be problems, without believing in this vague airy notion of "capitalism" as the enemy.

>>20716843
Human Action.

>>20717023
And you think this conclusively accounts for all forms of cooperation?

>>20717026
Let's go full retard here: are stars capitalist? Does the solar system's magnetosphere mark the boundary of our sun's private property? What about galaxies? Are they corporations?

>>20717035
Yes.

>>20717038
I think physics themselves might be capitalist.

Capitalism simply means that the workforce is on the market. If the average people freely sell their work (to those who own the means of production) as opposed to selling stuff they made/cultivated on their own, and also as opposed to being forced to work as slaves, that's capitalism.

It's not synonym with private property or hierarchy or natural selection or money.

>>20717039
So what is inconsistent or inconceivable to you about the possibility of collectives of individuals cooperating in order to limit exploitation by any particular individual or smaller group, for the purposes of preventing their capacity for personal gain being offset inordinately by aforementioned exploitation

>>20717062
I don't think I said any of that. That's probably just a sensible idea.

The dichotomy capitalism-anticapitalism, or leftwing-rightwing is inherently atheist, humanistic, hence nihilist (ie meaning nothing substantial), ie purely symbolic, ie purely for public appearance, since it is what the judeo christian bourgeois created in the Parliament of their republics. They put the monarchists on the right & the secular humanists on the left. Left & right refer to where people seat. And Atheism is itself a religion leading to destruction, massacre and anti-tolerance, as their 100 millions of dead thru various atheist revolutions and their two [2] fucking world wars prove.

you see thus that being right wing in a the republic just means monarchist, but now that the humanists killed any political power of the theists, the right is still socialist but dubbed ''right'' & the left is still socialism but dubbed ''left''.

There is no difference between left & right in a democratic republic.The only difference is the fake symbols tied to each group.
The underlying basis does not change. The underlying basis of the republic is the constitution about the Human rights. These rights are the jewel of the judeo Christians turned atheist, ie the bourgeois class.

Now the subtle point is that the ruling leftist & rightist classes are okay with that. All what matters for the ex-judeo christian bourgeois is that the theists do not take power again. & this happens exactly by giving the illusion to the midwits like you that left & right are separate doctrinally.
So the plebs can vote one time for the left, then they see that the bourgeois ruling class does XYZ, then the plebs whine that the ruling class is not doing what they promised during the electoral campaign, then the next election the plebs swing to the rightists, which is exactly the same people doing the same thing XYZ and not delivering on their promises.

Thus there is no ''capitalism'' or anticapitalism.
What there is the Humanist Republic, the dogma of their Human Rights .This is what capitalism is in its entirety.

Second capitalism cannot be destroyed without destroying the republic & its dogmas. This is what leftists hate to hear.

Third capitalism cannot be destroyed because by the dogma of the Human Rights, any doctrine is turned into a bulk of opinions, which are always turned into entertainment by being ridiculed and shat on in their media if the humanists see it as anti Human rights. The doctrines which manage to resist this barrier are then commodified (like t-shirts) & capitalism remains unaltered.

The most important thing for the bourgeois is that the plebs really believes that the ruling class will stop the evil mercantilist bourgeoisie after any election, which is done by making the plebs believe that there is a ''left'' and a ''right''.
This is why btw all the mottos & slogans in the humanist elections are always about ''''''''''''change'''''''''.

>>20717074

This is part of the fantasy of the humanist of the '''''''''perpetual revolution''''. Those people live on their fantasy of doing revolution over & over, fighting the cops in the streets as part of the atheist ritualistic baptism, because killing theist Christians is the only thing they did in their entire history & they only lived for this, but now that christians are impotent, atheists turn inwards and start eating each other alive.
the atheists have nothing left to do & get bored, so they try to find new topics to ''''''revolutionize'''', & they emrbace NARCISSISM, ie they revolutionize the republic, peak Marxism here, which is made from the revolution on the christian society, & they just end up sayin on FB that their own atheist civil servants like the cops are evil.

>>20717074
>>20717080
How does this relate to bird nests

>>20717074
Is the basic gist of what you're saying that without the notion of human rights, we wouldn't have capitalism, because we would just have slavery instead?

>>20717062
That really can't happen at nation or international level. You'll just have a bunch of cooperating entities competiting.
People first care about themselves and their partners, then friends, parents, city, race, nation. For example, white people in the first world will happily choose UBI and welfare state over allowing immigrants and globale economic justice.

>>20716843
>Are there any books about the history/origins of capitalism not written by retarded leftists
Impossible, as retarded lefties are the only ones who analyze capitalism as a phenomenon, and not as fundamental fabric of reality.

>>20717141
So, to you, the larger military alliances and economic unions/trade agreements in the world are not real examples of

>collectives of individuals cooperating in order to limit exploitation by any particular individual or smaller group, for the purposes of preventing their capacity for personal gain being offset inordinately by aforementioned exploitation

Because they are

> a bunch of cooperating entities competiting

And the fact that these entities are competing against each other, in what appears to be a rough equilibrium for the time being, somehow rules out the possibility that they are preventing further exploitation by those entities kept in check by said equilibrium?

I mean, what I'm hearing right now is

>you can't stop exploitation if competition exists

Which is silly, unless you equate exploitation with inequality

>>20717157
>capitalism
>fundamental fabric of reality

>>20717175
it's more that it's a fundamental component of life. Rocks don't really have capitalism, arguably.

>>20717173
read acemoglu to learn the difference between extractive and inclusive economies.

>>20717169
>So, to you, the larger military alliances and economic unions/trade agreements in the world are not real examples of
It's just big powerful countries forcing weak countries to object them.
Sure, you can call our current world order a form of cooperation but it's heavily coerced by power imbalances. No one is really cooperating of their own accord except for elites.
I also don't think there's any societal configuration without hierarchies and coercion and violence(the kind of shit anarchists want). We're biologically limited for that.

>>20717192
*obey

>>20717187
How is the hypothesized difference you're referencing relevant to anything I'm saying?

>>20717173
Define exploitation

>>20717181
>he hasn't taken the panpsychism pill

>>20717203
maybe you should read it and find out. the less capital an economy has the more it has to depend on exploitative extraction because there's no way to create more total output. equating capital with "exploitation" and not lack of capital is your mistake.

>>20716843
The accumulation of capital and usury are pretty recent and overwhelmingly jewish
You are mistaking capitalism with trading

>>20716854
Let me guess, you failed the verbal IQ component (<100).

>>20717214
>bitching about "usury"
aristotle was a shitty economist and a pagan

>>20716958
Nah private entities (mostly banks) owning basically society, fiat currency and usury did not happen for about 100,000 years. It's an entirely new scenario
You have an idea of tribalism that you just name capitalism

>>20717052
Doubt it. Employment has existed since at least Rome

>>20717062
>So what is inconsistent or inconceivable to you
Game theory. That said, it's not inconceivable that it would happen, but realistically in the same sense that natural selection operates, those who are willing to exploit the cooperative for their own gain end up on top in the long run, because nature is biased towards the strong and selfish=competitive.

>>20717157
>jewish bankers owning your country and pushing globalism
>fundamental fabric of reality

This poster >>20717220 is jewish

>>20717213
>equating capital with "exploitation" and not lack of capital is your mistake.
Point out the specific post where I did this, my exact words

>>20717219
You guessed wrong, which is to be expected, since you're dumb as rocks.

>>20717247
you implied it and now try to weasel out dishonestly, but that's because leftism is built on sand. have a nice day.

>>20717255
That test must not be worth much then.

>>20717261
Whatever you say, slick. Good job weaseling your way out of justifying your your interpretation of my posts. Go eat a dick

>>20717265
Feel free to take it (it still works diferentially), find out you're 2-3 standard devations below me, and then stop posting.

Companies/banks owning an entire country isn't natural and never happened. Nobody was above the king/chieftain from x,000,000bce to at least 500ce

It doesn't exist in chimpanzees

>>20717281
You misunderstood a two sentence post, bro. I don't need to prove anything, this is just funny.

>>20717227
Surely that's just going to happen eventually though. Sooner or later most of everything has been gathered up.

>>20717286
How does a CEO differ from a king or a chieftain?

>>20717290
>You misunderstood a two sentence post, bro.
The entire thread is a continous train wreck of OP failing to make the most basic distinctions and understanding the meaning of the terms he employs. There is nothing to understand or misunderstand, the post is pure noise disguised as parsable text - I do agree it's funny though, evolution of birds as a defense of capitalism is hilarious.
>I don't need to prove anything
Of course not, this is a basket-weaving forum - which is all well, because you haven't.

>>20716843
The absolute state of libertarians. Embarrassing.

Retarded Thread.

>>20716870
>>feudalism was actually capitalist because the king had all the private property and having private property = capitalism
This is basically what every modern communist thinks

>>20717302
>There is nothing to understand or misunderstand,
There is, and you obviously misunderstood it in your first post. OP asks if there are any books on the probable origins of capitalism and capitalistic behaviour in the natural world, and you proceed sperg out insinuating that OP is trying to justify bankers and real estate moguls. You're a joke.

>>20717299
king or chieftain rules politically over a slave, a feudal or an asiatic economy. a CEO is a functionary hired by a private capitalist enterprise
>>20717312
name one

>>20717321
Isn't a king or a chieftain functionally hired? People beneath them have to agree to follow them.

>>20717316
>OP asks
Oh, does "he"?

>>20717345
That is not even an assumption, it is my default pronoun when I don't know someone's gender. Interesting "retort", though.

>>20716854
>used their friends in the banks to give them infinite credit
This part here is exactly what wasn't capitalist about it

>>20717337
a king or a chieftain isn't an employee. his labour power is not a commodity and he doesn't exchange it for a private enterprise's capital.

>>20717374
Yeah, but effectively he does.

>>20717378
no, he doesn't. you can have chieftains and kings in the absence of any market for labour power and in the absence of capital, because it's an entirely different relation. whereas you can't have CEOs in such conditions because without wage labour and capital there aren't even enterprise that could hire them in the first place.

>>20717363
>not REAL capitalism, REAL capitalism hasn't been tried
i sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzz

>>20717391
You're effectively still doing a thing, in order to earn a thing, and if all goes to plan, amass a large quantity of thing, though.

>>20717404
Get help.

>>20717415
Would that be capitalism?

>>20717404
so what? they also both have two legs and shit. therefore there's no difference between a chieftain, a CEO and a kangaroo. you can equate everything to everything if you abstract from the things that make them different

>>20717418
I'm just trying to understand what capitalism is.

>>20717428
I don't think you'd be on /lit/ of all places if that was your goal.
capitalism is the generalization of production based on owners of money hiring people to produce things for them that the owners then sell.

>>20717299
Kill yourself immediately

>>20717404
>You're effectively still doing a thing, in order to earn a thing
that's called trade, not capitalism you mentally ill retard

>>20717449
that has existed for countless of years
capitalism is new
capitalism is private corporations controlling the government through an artificial economy

>>20717462
no, capitalism is the generalization of production based on owners of money hiring people to produce things for them that the owners then sell

>>20716843
This is the book you're looking for.

>>20717460
Same thing

Capitalism… Communism… If only there were a third position…

>>20717483
How is that different to cooperation?
You offer the tribe your services carving arrowheads, and they give you a cut of the meat in return. Same thing.

>>20716854
Terrible test

>>20717571
you're a direct part of the tribe from the get go, while an enterprise is a separate entity that you only enter into relation with through the market. and the tribe doesn't produce in order to sell, but in order to satisfy the needs of its members, including yourself. it's "same thing" only if you ignore all the things that make it different.

>>20716854
This wouldn't be a problem if the government didn't make it illegal to simply kill BlackRock executives for violating the NAP

>>20716862
Looks like you never read marx

>capitalism is when a bird makes a nest

>>20717513

There it is. Pack it up retards, we're done here.

>>20717169
>Because they are

>>20717610
Anarchism is a one of the hundred -isms made up by the bourgeois revolutionaries to saturate the political field in an attempt to make the plebeians stop thinking that kings were a thing. Atheists rewrite history this way.
With its moronic humanistically wishful-thinking non-aggression principle (NAP), Anarchism is literally the atheist fantasy of ''humanism of the bourgeois, without the legal republic of the bourgeois'' so it remains 100% controlled by bourgeois intellectuals. ie ''humanism is awesome''. And of course it can't be done in real life. It's literally a power fantasy for impotent beta cuck atheists. This is why it appeals to bugmen like tranny-lover Ted Kazincky and vaginally herd-follower Ayn Rand. Before atheists, anarchism never fucking existed and nobody ever though about this crappy religion (or ideology like atheists say, about their own religions).

>>20716843
>capitalism before the rise of homo sapiens
What the fuck do you think "capitalism" means?

>>20716843
Read Ellul.