Criticism of Capitalism / Right Wing Economics pt1

Criticism of Capitalism / Right Wing Economics pt1

What is interesting is within the strong core of red-pill knowledge, it breaks down into a lot of sub camps, but among the biggest are also proponents of right-wing ideologies namely ‘Capitalism’ – I am very critical of this, and the post might rub some wrong, but at least try to keep an open mind.

What got me inspired for this post, was I am almost done reading ‘Enjoy the decline’ which is a book written by ‘Captain Capitalism’ and while I find his social commentary good, his economic ‘genius’ is the same that plagues all republican thinking, and quite frankly I am glad I did not actually waste my money on this book as it rehashes the same ‘its all obamas fault’ as if I was watching fox news. This post is not about this book, because its just foxnews drivel repacked in some libertarian/ann rand wet dream fantasy.

The major problem, is the lies capitalism lures the populace in with, with siren-like words that we are often too indoctrinated to resist. Let us list some of the major capitalism tenets:

1: The rich are the ‘job creators’

2: The rich are there because they are smarter/more capable/ had a better idea than the rest of us

3: If you aren’t rich, its because you weren’t smart/capable/inventive enough

4: If you work hard, you too will eventually be a millionaire

5: The government is evil, and does nothing good except perhaps defense

6: The ‘Private Sector’ can do anything the government can do, better, cheaper, and more ‘free’

7: Capitalism is the only ‘free’ system, where the best rise to the top

8:There is nothing wrong with capitalism, and anyone criticizing it is likely a Liberal/Commy

9: (Unspoken but critical) Money/Wealth is real

Economics is a joke major, it was the major at college the athletes took because they were too dumb to take anything else, like the concepts of supply/demand are really that complicated. Do they understand real world concepts like buying out the competition to suppress actual competitors, do they understand legal challenges to remove startups from the running, do they understand the lobbyist/subsidy revolving door plague? If they processed even one of those they would have some real tough questions about if capitalism is so good. I took advanced economics, and it was talking about things like ‘inelastic demand’ for gasoline, as if its something really hard to grasp, WHEN CAPITLISM ECONOMICS IS NOOB AS FUCK.

Essentially, the problem with these people, is that they see Obama, they see our economic crisis, and they put his ‘socialist policies’ as the reason, as if the entire slowdown that has been happening since 2000 never really happened. Now, I hate Obama, I think he is a total fucking sham, and that he is nothing more than a puppet for higher powers like multi-national corporations (hey capitalists, how does that fit in? Where do they teach political buy offs?) People entirely fail to connect that our entire world is simply running out of resources, and if this statement does not compute you really need to read outside the box, because this shit is real.

Look up things like how many off-shore rigs Saudi Arabia has had to build to keep production up, look up how we are doubling shale oil rigs, but production is only holding steady, look up the Oglala aquifer about to collapse within 20 years…it is things like this, not because ‘obama is a socialist’. Obama is a pathetic, hate-able shyster, and he is doing tremendous damage to our country, but if you think Romney was going to be able different you are severely delusional, if you think ANY POLITICIAN WHO CAN GET ELECTED is not completely controlled you are dead, dead wrong.

This is what pisses me off about a lot of libertarians, right-wing econ people etc, they don’t realize the dream they are stuck in, they truly think it is obamas fault, and once some fat fuck like chris Christy or ‘freedom loving’ rand paul get in there suddenly everything will be back to normal. The game is over, capitalism is a flawed system that ends in monopolies and trans-national corporations that subsume governments to keep the profits flowing.

Like in this book, he has all these nice graphs about ‘social parasites’ taking their unemployment, medicare etc, yes, that is a government expenditure, but how about we look at corporate subsidies (whats that? You don’t even know that term?) which VASTLY outweighs the ‘handouts’ to the parasites. Look this shit up for yourself! Or how about the top 20 corporations that don’t pay taxes, which can help fund BILLIONS that the gov is not getting. How do capitalists justify this? Is it rationale? (I have had that argued to me, btw) maybe its rationale, but it should be illegal as fuck. You pay your millions in taxes, otherwise you get booted out of our country, you can keep your off-shore headquarters (which all of them do) and you do not get access to our markets.

Capitlism is based on the severely flawed idea that capital/money is ‘something’ instead of just a lubricate for social exchanges, that this ‘wealth’ can then be manipulated. It is kind of like if you have 10 men who can do 10 hours of labor a day, that by pulling some accounting tricks, that suddenly those 10 men actually produce 150 hrs of labor instead of the real 100. We have so much unfunded and over-leverage ‘wealth’ that there is more in the world that ACTUALLY EXISTS in the world. Think about how irrational this is.

Its late, and I will expand these points in a future post, but essentially capitalism is this lie the sheeple on the bottom (yes that’s all of us) are fed that we too will one day be a millionaire instead of the dynastic reality and nepotism you will never successfully navigate. Oh, but let’s blame puppet-obama, its so much easier than actually thinking.



44 thoughts on “Criticism of Capitalism / Right Wing Economics pt1

  1. This rant is about as useful and true as the drivel on Faux “News”.

    Yes, economics does cover buying out the competition to suppress competition. It is talked about in terms of barriers to entry and predatory acquisitions. Yes, economics does cover the revolving door. It is talked about in terms of regulatory capture.

    Elasticity is a fundamental concept, not an advanced concept. If you where talking about the elasticity of gasoline you where in an intro class, not an advanced class.

    This said, much of your criticism is valid criticism of Republicanism and Libertartianism, but not of Capitalism. When talking about “job creators” and the evils of government, this is Republicansim and/or Libertarianism. When people are insisting that the overly simplified and stylized supply and demand lines for perfectly competitive markets are actually representative of real markets, this is Republicanism/Libertarianism, not Capitalism and not supported by Economics.

    The base concept of Capitalism is that Capital improves productivity. An example. With my bare hands I can’t chop down the tree or cord it. With Capital, an Axe, I could chop down and cord 1 tree per day. With better capital, a chainsaw, I could chop down and cord 3 trees per day. With better capital, heavy duty logging equipment, I could chop down and cord 50 trees per day. Given the benefits of improving capital, the individuals that traded current consumption for future consumption deserve a return on their capital investments.

      • There are un-reality things within the current system I don’t believe in. The entire “Debt is Wealth” aspect of modern fractional reserve banking is a great example of un-reality. This is how we have more “capital” than actually exists. This doesn’t make capitalism wrong or incorrect or some sort of theology. It is the convolutions created by plutocrats in an attempt to preform regulatory capture that are incorrect theocratic un-realities. It is Republicanism and Libertarianism that are incorrect un-realities, not capitalism.

        • I am glad you see those parts, but the disconnect still exists between what is manifest by capitlism, and some ‘pure’ form of it. They are all part of the same thing, its like arguing ‘hotels in monopoly is broken, but the game itself isnt’. Its all interconnected.

          • Any one arguing for some “pure” form of capitalism is a nut job. No “pure” economy can exist. Any one attempting to argue for “pure” capitalism or socialism or whatever simply has no clue what they are talking about. It’s not a question of if it’s a GREAT system, but how dysfunctional it is and how dysfunctional it can be while still functioning.

    • “The base concept of Capitalism is that Capital improves productivity”

      Ideologies live or die based on how they are applied in the real world, not the theoretical world. Just ask an ex-communist.

  2. haha, I made some libertarians go apeshit when I suggested minimum wage should be raised…

    there was this weirdo Chuck Ross who made his blog private because he wants to become a “perfessinal writer” but doesn’t want anyone to know about his neo nazi/white nationalist views. He would always talk about the pseudoscience of HBD. He would always talk about how evillle poor people were and how it was unfair that rich people pay so much in taxes. Funny thing how these “right wingers” go on and on about personal responsibility. He went 40k in to debt for his “educashin” then got a job as a waiter. Dude, high school dropouts get the same job without the debt. Trying to reason with these lame ass fuckers is about the same as trying to reason with a femanzi. I really can’t tell the difference between Amanda Marcotte and the so called man-0-sphere these days.

    • Although Ross wasn’t a stranger to Manosphere topics, his Gucci Little Piggy blog was part of a different corner of the Dark Enlightenment than the Manosphere. He’s a smart guy. On his blog, Chuck Ross was curious, meticulous, and showed his work. You don’t have to agree with all his biases and premises (I didn’t) to have appreciated the value his blog added to the discourse.

      From what I gather, Ross wanted to do something else with his degree skillset, ie, paid punditry, than the jobs that were directly hiring for his graduate degree. He took on waiting tables because it doesn’t require a specialized advanced degree in order to pay the bills – including, presumably, his student debt – while pursuing his professional interest. Apparently, he’s now succeeding in that goal. I don’t see the contradiction there with personal responsibility. If anything, Ross’s choice to take a risk and go off-track to pursue his lambition applies the ethic of going your own way.

      From what I gather, albeit based only on his posts, Ross is/was a conscientious waiter. He gives the impression he has a solid work ethic and is respectful and dutiful on the job, whatever his personal biases may be.

      Gucci Little Piggy was thought-provoking and I’ll miss it .

  3. I’ve been thinking for awhile that it might be an ethical form of rebellion for a MGTOW to get a shit ton of credit cards, then rack ’em up then default. Sure, your credit is fucked and you won’t be able to get a job in corporate Amerikkka, but do you even want that shit anyways?

  4. Have you read through this?

    I think they unlike many others address the fact that the so called rich get corporate welfare and that it is bullshit. What the culture presents as “Capitalism” is anything but Capitalism. What they call the” Free market” is not the free market. Sent using Hushmail On Sunday, 27 April 2014 at 12:56 PM, “Erudite Knight – On the search for truth” wrote: a:hover { color:red; } a { text-decoration:none; color:#08c; } a.primaryactionlink:link,a.primaryactionlink:visited { background-color:#2585B2; color:#fff; } a.primaryactionlink:hover,a.primaryactionlink:active { background-color:#11729E!important; color:#fff!important; } Erudite Knight posted: “Criticism of Capitalism / Right Wing Economics pt1 What is interesting is within the strong core of red-pill knowledge, it breaks down into a lot of sub camps, but among the biggest are also proponents of right-wing ideologies namely ‘Capitalism’ – I a”

  5. But what we live under isn’t capitalism and what people worship isn’t capitalism. We live under a plutocracy, which is the inevitable result of capitalism, but not actually capitalism. Capitalism is the chicken, not the egg. And what people worship is meritocracy, a reasonable ideal, but a weak ideology when projected onto a plutocracy.

    Short form: we all believe we live under capitalism and try and fit it into our worldview, when in reality capitalism died in the West a long time ago with the arrival of Big Bank, government subsidies and generation upon generation of inheritance.

      • Capitalism itself isn’t inherently bad. But, unless the society is tiny, it will inevitably lead to plutocracy or tyranny which, whilst sometimes efficient, are bad. And when a society is small enough that capitalism wouldn’t disintegrate, communism works better than capitalism anyway. So I guess that makes capitalism bad.

        And don’t be afraid of “too advanced”. Your readers can grow with you and the further you push out the boat, the more interesting you are in the debate.

  6. The rich dont create jobs

    They steal & take jobs away from the poor

    Corporations dont create jobs, they take jobs away from working class men

    Capitalism is a theory of funneling as much cash as possible from REAL jobs to service based economies, such as government & speculative markets, such as the stock market

    While paying the working class men, they exploit virtually a pittance

    Its nothing more then a scam, a pyramid scheme to screw over farmers, innovators & working class men

    A cash based society doesnt work

    All it does is benefit those who print the money in the first place

  7. @genderneutral

    If you had your own resources to manufacture your own axe, or chainsaw you wouldnt need capital cash or money to begin with

    All cash does is hijack valuable resources & locks them into commodities such as an axe or a chainsaw

    In order to free a people from extreme hunger & starvation, we give people the resources to build their own axes & chainsaws

    IF you want to save a person from hunger, TEACH HIM TO FISH & GIVE HIM ACCESS TO RESOURCES TO FISH

    All cash does is fucks over millions of people to FREE resources, such as food & shelter & demands they work millions of hours a day, just to get access to pieces of paper, to basic survival needs & wants

    If the people built their own houses, would they need cash?

    If people grew their own food, would they need cash?

    If people make their own technologies & tools, would they need cash?

    It’s all about a people NOT HAVING ACCESS to resources, to free from government & criminals

    Again IF you had access to the resources & material to build your own p.c or laptop, would you need cash?

    NO, all you would need is a tool or device to assemble the resources & you would be free

    • Well that’s the rub. You can be free from government OR free from criminals, but not both. You either have a legitimate government or the might makes right of criminal tyranny. If you want to make the claim that our current government is no longer a legitimate government but a might makes right criminal tyranny, well you can make a great argument.

    • rmaxgenactivepua seems to be mixing the end stage of Marxism with the subsistence lifestyle ideal. The two social economic visions aren’t compatible.

  8. Our economy is flawed, that’s for sure. There are a bunch of documentaries out which do a good job in showing what happened and when it happened. Inequality for all, Inside Job, The Flaw, etc. If you’re interested in this topic I recommend checking them out.

    Seems like the biggest problems began in the early 80s with all the deregulation (Savings and Loan Crisis) and Clinton continued it with the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act which was a giant fuck up (could go on but its pretty easy to look up).

    I think the biggest issue that we have in terms of the economy is that our elected officials don’t have the people’s best interests in mind. They have large corporations interests and thanks to the Supreme Court in the past few years its getting worse. They need a lot of money to get elected and its completely corrupting the system. We need publicly funded elections and strong regulations. We can’t trust people to do what would be best for the country on their own, we tried that and doesn’t work.

    My question for you would be so what do you suggest we do? Is there another economic system that you favor and why?

      • Spot on. Pure capitalism doesn’t work and to be honest isn’t even practiced. The closer we come to a pure system the worse our economy gets. Even Greenspan learned his lesson. Ayn Rand should simply be regarded as a fiction writer. Atlas Shrugged is a story, it shouldn’t be taken as viable economic policy.

    • I check in from time to time. Not using the internet as much these days. 🙂

      Heinleinesque…that everyone who wants to either vote or serve in office must volunteer for the military. It doesn’t require that everyone serve (it’s anti-conscription), rationale being forcing someone into military service is that forcing someone into a position of responsibility he doesn’t have, doesn’t want, and resents is not a way to obtain responsibility. The person has to develop that himself…

      From Starship Troopers: “This is why we make it so hard to enroll, so easy to resign. Social responsibility above the level of family, or at most of tribe, requires imagination-devotion, loyalty, all the higher virtues-which a man must develop himself; if he has them forced down him, he will vomit them out. Conscript armies have been tried in the past.”

      • Starship Troopers is about culture. It doesn’t cover the economic side except to say the society is stable with implied economic stability and the Rico family business was some kind of manufacturing corporation. Best guess is Heinlein imputed the 1950s economy of the West, but that guess is shaky given the different kind of government and society advocated by Heinlein.

  9. Agreed. Also, have you ever tried to read that thing? It was TERRIBLE, I barely got through it. I’m looking forward to your next post. It’s refreshing to hear from someone who is as curious and interested about the world as I am.

    • Rand’s philosophy was very utopian. She didn’t acknowledge that coercive forces can exist outside the realm of government enterprise, and (in Atlas Shrugged, at least) offered her characters a nice little utopian sanctuary to run to when the world collapsed.
      No infirm people in that sanctuary. Very few if any children either, for that matter….but she did offer an interesting perspective about social conditioning and problems inherent with the entitlement mentality. I’d say she got it approximately 33 percent right. If her work had been intentionally satirical, I’d give it a thumbs up.

    • When they raise the minimum wage, the salaries of all paid by the hour employees goes up commensurate to that. For example, if the minimum wage for beginning nursing assistants goes up to 10 dollars an hour from eight the salary of every other nursing assistant (the highest are around 25 dollars per hour) as well….and the rest of the medical staff outside of salaried employees. This does have an impact on cost.

      • Also impacts hiring, of course. This is a more complicated equation than just raising the salary of every minimum wage earner.

      • The biggest expense right now is healthcare. Food stamps are a pittance by comparison. People work shite jobs so their kids and families will get coverage.

        I’m not going to take a lot of stock in the opinion of the guy who made his fortune by designing software that allowed mortgages to be chopped up into securities. That’s a very short-term thinking individual, to put it kindly.

      • To have a strong economy you need a strong middle class (aka the majority of the population with disposable income). Today, our middle class is struggling and many are falling into a lower socio-economic level. Wages have been stagnant since the 70s.

        I think we have a decision to make in this country, either we pay people a living wage or we have to expand government assistance. Someone who works full time but doesn’t make enough money to take care of themselves, let alone a family, shouldn’t be called a taker or a slacker for needing food stamps/government assistance. If you want to cut back on social programs, people need to be paid more.

        I’m not saying one answer is better than the other or that I’m not open to other suggestions on how to fix this problem, I just think immoral to work people hard, pay them shit and then be mad that they need a hand. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

      • I agree, Somethingwitty.
        EK, unfortunately when we compete globally it isn’t a free market system. The governments of other countries subsidize their industries, both directly (example: “corporate welfare”) and indirectly (example: healthcare benefits…this one is a huge equalizer, the reason a PRN position without health benefits can pay 37 dollars per hour whereas the equivalent position with benefits is around 23 dollars per hour, health coverage adds that much to the business expense).

        So when Boeing competes with Airbus, for instance…they aren’t only competing with Airbus, they are competing with Airbus plus a hundred million+ dollars in subsidies. It’s not an even playing field, and if Boeing goes bankrupt and folds we’re now dependent on European industry. These are huge industries that require massive amounts of capital to finance…so if they fold, it isn’t like a sock making factory where it’s easy to start another. And even if they could, the next would be competing with subsidized industry overseas also.

      • Just to add further, of course it’s a very dynamic problem still and the Boeing example only touches the surface (but it’s illustrative). Consider how American and American company can truly be if 70+ percent of its product is manufactured overseas.

  10. Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    The “Laws of Economics” deny that humans have free will. An entrepreneur CHOOSES not to hire people if the minimum wage is too high. Understandable, but DON’T HIDE behind impersonal “Laws of Economics”.
    The hypocriscy of Capitalism spawned the hypocrisy of Communism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s