Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 114 KB, 1100x1643, why-liberalism-failed1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14945239 No.14945239 [Reply] [Original]

With the coronavirus currently crippling liberal institutions, is it actually happening? Is liberalism failing?

>> No.14945264
File: 118 KB, 454x322, 794821AF-7A7B-4D24-A336-0F809C8A2BCD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14945264

Capitalism, yes.

>> No.14945385

I'm fine with it failing so long as a certain individual is dead or at least senile by the time it happens

>> No.14945387

>>14945264
capitalism is too big to fail

>> No.14945393

>>14945385
Who would that be?

>> No.14945396

Not likely, read The Shock Doctrine. Bailouts are already being set in place for airlines, the cruise industry, etc. The system is remarkably good at not only healing but strengthening itself in the aftermath of crises. I can see the virus changing politics but not breaking down systems of international finance such as federal banks, the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc. in the long term.

>> No.14945403 [DELETED] 

>>14945239
It has already failed, we're living in the ruins of it.

>> No.14945408 [DELETED] 

>>14945264
>direct democracy
That's just the same old shit but even worse.

>> No.14945448

>>14945264
Retard.

>> No.14945616

>>14945387
Banker logic.

>>14945408
>That's the never quite tried shit that always works better.
Bootlicker.

>> No.14945648
File: 22 KB, 360x254, allah5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14945648

>>14945239
The book cover should be this image.

>> No.14945703

>>14945616
Did you really just do the "it's never been tried before meme" as if anyone isn't aware that you (and everyone who thinks like you) is totally full of shit? Direct democracy is crippled black trannies twerking in the corpse of civilization forever. Literally the more direct the democracy the stronger the capitalist state. People don't suddenly become capable of fighting against hierarchically minded powerful once you need to ask every air headed thot on every college campus in the nation their opinion before you try to accomplish anything. All that direct democracy does in the 21st century is allow capital to become the state in a more official way than they already are.

>> No.14945713

>>14945703
>the crippled black trannies twerking defense
Read the fucking book or never speak of democracy again.

>> No.14945724 [DELETED] 

>>14945616
One single strike and you're dead. How does that make you feel, woman?

>> No.14945811

>>14945713
What some old Jew thinks democracy can be has very little bearing on what democracy actually is in the 21st century. There is no resistance against the Jeff Bezos empire by democratically squabbling over whose turn it is to molest the community sanctioned drag kid.

>> No.14945832

>>14945239
The West is failing. The Sinosphere has demonstrated its superiority

>> No.14945891

>>14945239
Neoliberal global distribution chains have become totally crippled. Governments are being forced to recognize that in to mitigate the issues facing their constituents they must shift emphasis on "market demand," meaning the demands of the propertied class, but to expand governmental assistance in a time of particularly striking and apparent need. What liberal institutions have failed?

>> No.14945957

Trumpism isn't Liberal.
He killed the special pandemic team at CDC. He's literally openly asking people to embrace death for the sake of the economy so he can look good.
Liberalism/Capitalism isn't being done, just Slavic style Kleptocracy.

>> No.14945982

>>14945957
Right-liberalism is still capitalism
Corporatism is still capitalism
Neoliberalism is still capitalism

>embrace death
I know. The elites have been very careless with us since the labor surplus of the 70s. They want us to die

>> No.14945992

>>14945982
I don't talk politics with ideologues who can't understand fine distinctions. Learn to think

>> No.14946021 [DELETED] 

>>14945713
That's what democracy is though, the complete rule of capital. Have you never read any texts from actual revolutionaries?

>> No.14946040

>>14945387
rome is too big to fail

>> No.14946314
File: 73 KB, 650x650, aristotle-politics-quotes-democracy-is-when-the-indigent-and-not-the-men-of-property.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14946314

>>14945992
>It's not my favourite kind of capitalism so it's not capitalism

>>14946021
>I don't know what democracy is

>> No.14946387

>>14945957
trump is definitely liberal

>> No.14946421

>>14945396
This. Notice the whole "but how do we pay for it??" question is suddenly no longer even considered. Bailing out the elite 0.01% ruling class is just a given. Whatever she's saying now, eventually Nancy Pelosi will cave to a trillion dollar plus corporate slush fund. Just watch.

>> No.14946442

>>14945703
>Did you really just do the "it's never been tried before meme" as if anyone isn't aware that you (and everyone who thinks like you) is totally full of shit?
Did you really just make an idiotic comment about another post without providing even a shred of evidence?

>Direct democracy is crippled black trannies twerking in the corpse of civilization forever.
You sound upset. Are you okay?

>Literally the more direct the democracy the stronger the capitalist state.
Wow, that's a new one.

>People don't suddenly become capable of fighting against hierarchically minded powerful once you need to ask every air headed thot on every college campus in the nation their opinion before you try to accomplish anything.
Have you been drinking?

>All that direct democracy does in the 21st century is allow capital to become the state in a more official way than they already are.
Don't drive home.

>> No.14946467

>>14946421
I moved back in with my parents when I switched jobs a few months ago and now I'm stuck in the house with them all day listening to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh tell them about the situation.
It's hilarious how quickly boomer media can now adapt to shit like this, every single day they have guests arguing that the economy is more important than protecting the country's health with a straight face, and aside from a single old black dude named Juan that's on for an hour a day half-assedly trying to tell them to reconsider, this is taken as an obvious truth. Today Greg Gutfeld said that if everyone didn't go back to work in the next two weeks, the death toll would actually be HIGHER because millions of Americans would commit suicide. Everyone just nodded along like that made perfect sense, there was not a word of dissent. It's surreal.

>> No.14946469

>>14946314
Who do you think controls the voters even in am ideal utopian democratic state? The only action against capital is a collective one.

>> No.14946486
File: 236 KB, 1080x946, calm_reassuring_leadership_in_difficult_times.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14946486

>>14946467
it's worse than that, anon
he was quoting the president

>> No.14946508

>>14946486
Oh noes. Wall Streeters will jump out windows.
The fuck. I hate these people

>> No.14946510

>>14946442
wow condescending sarcasm are you a woman

>> No.14946516

>>14946469
>Who do you think controls the voters
Which is why political "democracy" in the absence of full Economic Democracy is fool's gold.

>> No.14946526

>>14946510
>I prefer to object to your style, rather than actually address the substance of your criticism.
OK.

>> No.14946528

>>14946510
To be fair, there was nothing to debate there.

>> No.14946533

>>14946467
It makes sense though, economical collapse would mean a lot to America right now.

https://youtu.be/dX5Jyf-65wI

With that said I hope China is the winner in this, Americans are insufferable.

>> No.14946537

>>14946516
Both are utopian pipedreams and I doubt they would be desirable even if they were possible to implement.

>> No.14946538

can we go back to monarchy+feudalism yet

that was way better

>> No.14946541

>>14946040
the roman empire never ended

>> No.14946551
File: 80 KB, 417x500, Morris - News From Nowhere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14946551

>>14946537
>I doubt they would be desirable
I just read a book explaining it in nice Victorian prose. But you probably don't read.

>Pipedream
Self fulfilling prophecy, duder.

>>14946538
No it wasn't. Read tho

>> No.14946583

>>14946537
>Both are utopian pipedreams
What do you mean? Every adult non-felonious citizen is theoretically allowed to vote in this country. There is obviously a lot of voter suppression going on, but the gist of political democracy has been implemented to some extent. What hasn't been implemented is economic democracy. We still spend 99.99% of our lives under a totalitarian capitalist regime.

>> No.14946619

>>14945264
Genuine question, why are leftists so optimistic? Why do they think capitalism is a fragile system? It has survived centuries of global warfare, revolutions, implosions, cycles of decline, etc and it always manages to bounce back. It absorbs everything in its path to the point where imagining a world without capitalism is borderline impossible. And yet, leftists pretend that this crisis means that the system is going to fail and global socialism is finally going to be implemented. Why?

Leftists do not win any elections, they don't appeal to the vast majority of people, their revolutionary idealism is essentially role-playing and they pretty much congregate entirely on twitter. Social media is the base of their operations and nothing they do translates to political change. So why the optimism that capitalism will fall so easily?

>> No.14946646

>>14946533
>It makes sense that suicides from sad Wall Street executives would outnumber deaths from a global plague
Yeah I remember the 2008 crisis drastically altering world demographics and how we couldn't cremate the ever-growing piles of corpses

>> No.14946681

>>14946551
>I just read a book explaining it in nice Victorian prose. But you probably don't read.
Maybe I will, those times and that people is long gone though. The assumptions made there cannot possibly still apply. All Western democracies are too split up along ethnic lines and artifical ones for any format of informed democracy to work.

>> No.14946695

>>14946619
>Genuine question, why are leftists so optimistic?
Because they are looking to change the status quo, and pessimism as a mental state does not generally lead to action.

>Why do they think capitalism is a fragile system?
They don't.

>It has survived centuries of global warfare, revolutions, implosions, cycles of decline, etc and it always manages to bounce back.
It has endured within 1% of human history at best. Get a grip.

>It absorbs everything in its path to the point where imagining a world without capitalism is borderline impossible.
Imagining a world where workers enjoy the fruits of their labor is impossible? Whatever you say, libshit.

>And yet, leftists pretend that this crisis means that the system is going to fail and global socialism is finally going to be implemented. Why?
Not sure what you mean. The current "crisis" means capitalist fatcats will bail themselves out at taxpayer expense.

>Leftists do not win any elections, they don't appeal to the vast majority of people, their revolutionary idealism is essentially role-playing and they pretty much congregate entirely on twitter.
Your mention of "twitter" is all anyone needs to know about the sources of your "analysis".

>Social media is the base of their operations
Lol.

>and nothing they do translates to political change.
Leftists aren't liberals, kiddo.

>So why the optimism that capitalism will fall so easily?
Reread what you wrote and think about it.

>> No.14946782

>>14946695
>Whatever you say, libshit.

Not a libshit, just not a brain dead retard that thinks capitalism is some sort of easy opponent with alternatives that most people in the West would support.

>> No.14946792

>>14945264
Direct democracy is retarded because things are extremely complex and the population is largely confident retards. Having direct democracy for a nation like the usa which is extremely influential, where what is decided here effects every other part of the world is dangerous. Imagine the average idiot who can't even point out a country on a map with public school history education deciding foreign policy. If this ever happens the rest of the world should nuke this entire country in order to protect themselves from that kind of retardation. Most people haven't even read a single book in the last year and unironiclly form their world views from twitter and 24 hour news. The upper 20% read three fiction books and get their ideas from their teachers and sources like politico of the new york times. No way please God no do not let my life be decided by these people. Direct democracy only somewhat works at the immediate local level

>> No.14946893

>>14946681
Morris idealizes the middle ages and so projects that in his hopes for the future, not too unlike the tribe of Ted. You’re wrong about democracy though. If you read Bookchin you’d understand.

>>14946619
>Why do they think capitalism is a fragile system?
It only bounces back when there’s a shot of “socialism”. It’s a zombie system. It’s stumbling around and killing people. It needs to go.
> Leftists do not win any elections,
Because there’s people like you that like to be tied up and beat. The majority of the country would like to elect Bernie, a moderate, because he’s the leftest thing they’ve heard of.

>>14946792
Direct democracy is best in small areas, and is ALWAYS better as they are self correcting. The majority will steer the fools away from mistakes, like not educating future populace’s. Please read Bookchin before you repeat this mistake

>> No.14947175

>>14946893
>It only bounces back when there’s a shot of “socialism”
True.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Schweickart
https://thenextsystem.org/

>> No.14947216

>>14946893
If most would like to elect Bernie he would be elected.

>> No.14947222

>>14947216
Sounds like you have a lot of faith in the machinery of American democracy.

>> No.14947226

>>14945264
I think capitalism is alright. The problem is corporatism, monopolies and lobbying.

>> No.14947274

>direct democracy
lol, like the voting at that notoriously famous "point of privilege" DSA convention? There were people who literally didn't know what they were voting about. And that's direct democracy only in a microcosm.

>> No.14947313

>>14945957
>He killed the special pandemic team at CDC
No he didn't. This is the reason I oppose democracy in all forms. Uninformed and easily manipulated bastards like you have no business making policy decisions.

>> No.14947317

>>14945264
For once I actually agree. I haven't seen nearly as many Capitalist shills as I did years ago.

>> No.14947679

>>14947226
>I think capitalism is alright. The problem is corporatism, monopolies and lobbying.
AKA capitalism.

>> No.14947708

>>14947679
Do you suppose corruption doesn't exist under socialism?

>> No.14947711

>>14947708
No. Why?

>> No.14947720

>>14947711
You're defining capitalism as the existence of monopolies and lobbying as if it doesn't also exist under socialism. It doesn't make any sense.

>> No.14947730

>>14945239
>With the coronavirus currently crippling liberal institutions
It's crippling the capitalist mode of production which is the material basis of liberal institutions.
>Is liberalism failing?
Failing at what?

>>14947708
How does corruption work without property?

>> No.14947739

>>14947730
>Failing at what?
To not crumble under pressure against it; to maintain a function civilization

>> No.14947753
File: 79 KB, 1165x548, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14947753

>>14947730
>>14945239
>It's crippling the capitalist mode of production which is the material basis of liberal institutions.
Let me correct this right away, because I way overstated it. The virus simply triggered the scheduled downturn in capitalism, which is crippled in its essence rather than being crippled by some exogenous factors.

>>14947739
It's not liberalism that's crumbling but it's material basis, which can however always try reinvigorate itself through massive destruction of capital like it did in the first half of the last century. It's possible for it to go one step too far in this and crumble completely, but whether this will happen or not can't be predicted.

>> No.14947757

>>14947720
>You're defining capitalism as the existence of monopolies and lobbying
I'm defining 'capitalism' in accordance with the original definition, aka any system in which non-working elites capture the majority of produce of working people.

>as if it doesn't also exist under socialism.
No.

>It doesn't make any sense.
What don't you understand?

>> No.14947764

>>14947753
That chart is shit and you obviously know it...

>> No.14947769

This is crumbling all countries, even non-liberal ones like China and Iran.

There is NO economic system that would be able to stop this. When a pandemic hits and countries go on lockdown, businesses close, people stop going to work, production decreases, lay-offs occur, etc. This would happen under ANY economic system. In fact it is the VERY DEFINITION of a lockdown.

Soon the virus will be gone and the stock market will go up and everything will go back to normal. The only difference is that we will take pandemics more seriously and perhaps implement some helpful social policies. The US might look more seriously at socialising healthcare, for example, and other countries might consider UBI.

>> No.14947774

>>14946893
>The majority would like to elect Bernie
And yet they elected Biden. Kek.

>> No.14947794

>>14947769
OK, but "how are you going to pay for it"?

Giving $2 Trillion to corporate executives is certainly in line with what happened in 2008.

A trillion-dollar slush fund is what elite executives want right now, not what average people need....

>> No.14947836

>>14947757
I don't know what the hell you felt the need to cut up that post with greentext but it's retarded. Do "non-working elites" not exist under socialism? Your thinking is so confused.

>> No.14947847

>>14946646
Are you actually that sheltered that you don't know about the massive problem with "deaths of despair" in the working class in the last 20 years? The 2008 economic collapse caused hundreds of times more suicides in the working class whose jobs and abilities to provide for their families were suddenly erased than wallstreet bankers. I swear, you fucking people have no God damn sympathy for actual workers, just people who are in your fucking religious cult. What the fuck even is "economic democracy" anyways? It's nonsense.

>> No.14947857

>>14947836
Take a deep breath... where did I go wrong?

>> No.14947865

>>14947757
This is the main way you can tell that socialists of all bends have no actual understanding of resource management. "Non-working elites who capture the majority of the produce of working people" do not exist. The managerial class manufactures the majority of the produce of the working people. The vast majority of a companies worth is tied into the intangible things that the capitalist class creates not the Chinese garbage that they stock on their shelves (and this has become increasingly self evident by the never ending race to the bottom in material costs that companies pursue). The workers are not the majority of the produce of almost any company, that is almost always tied into intangible things like intellectual property management and logistics optimization that the workers have as little to do with as your bathroom light switch has to do with the power being delivered to your house.

>> No.14947895

>>14947708
fuck your whataboutism. capitalism 100% of the time results in massive corruption. deal with that first.

>> No.14947906

>>14947857
I don't think I can explain anything to you but I'll try once again. You're defining capitalism as "non working elites" capturing the majority of the production. This happens under socialism. You're literally defining everything bad to be capitalism.

>>14947895
This isn't a whataboutism. You people are fucking retarded.

>> No.14947923

>>14947865
>This is the main way you can tell that socialists of all bends have no actual understanding of resource management.
Whoah... Is that so?

>"Non-working elites who capture the majority of the produce of working people" do not exist.
They don't? Please explain how....

>The managerial class manufactures the majority of the produce of the working people. The vast majority of a companies worth is tied into the intangible things that the capitalist class creates not the Chinese garbage that they stock on their shelves (and this has become increasingly self evident by the never ending race to the bottom in material costs that companies pursue).
Yes, butt...

>The workers are not the majority of the produce of almost any company, that is almost always tied into intangible things like intellectual property management and logistics optimization that the workers have as little to do with as your bathroom light switch has to do with the power being delivered to your house.
xyzabc... whatever....

>> No.14947952

>>14947923
Amazon is the cult of Jeff Bezos. The never ending line of worker bees don't create the majority of the produce for the company. It is the perception that you can get anything cheaper and delivered to your door (which was created by "non-working elites" within the company) and the massive logistical management scheme to get free 2 day shipping from anywhere in the US (and now many other countries as well) for anything in their prime network. The value in their company is not in the items they sell which the workers interact with, but in the image and management of those items that the "non-working elites" have cultivated. Without the elites there is no Amazon, the workers almost don't matter in their operation.

That is the reality of capital in the 21st century (rather than the 19th and early 20th centuries that left-socialists still seem to think we operate in). We can do social programs and pay for them just fine under capitalism with a little MMT, it's all of this nonsense about worker management of firms that causes problems for socialists. It's just a bad and outdated understanding of how workers and capital operates.

>> No.14947968

>>14945264
dilate tranny

>> No.14948016

>>14947764
How do you mean? It might be shit in that it doesn't accruately the reflect real unemployment rate at any given time, but it correctly reflects the cyclicity of capitalist crisis, and that one has long been overdue.

>>14947769
>This would happen under ANY economic system.
Sure, but what wouldn't occur under socialism is the snowball effect which will inevitably follow. People from non-essential industries would stop working and instead relieve those working in essential ones, and everything would resume as usual as soon as the pandemic would have been over.

Here though people won't just get the same job back immediately. A proper recovery will take years, new companies will have to be started in place of the ones that will go bankrupt etc., etc. We're talking an avalanche, the effects of which will last for years because they can't be contained like they can be in an economy which is controlled by society rather than a blind independent force.

>>14947952
The postulate of socialism is not worker management of firms but abolition of firms and of workers as a class.

>> No.14948019

The revolution will come, but it won't result in tranny socialism, nigger-like anarchism, or just faggy "muh civic nationalism" conservativism.

It will be greater than all, a fascist revolution to purge modern degeneracy and flush away all neoliberalist filth.

>> No.14948025

>>14946467
It doesn't take an economist to know that a recession, God forbid a depression, would exponentially compound everything, right? If the economy goes down, it's game over. We can tackle the Chinese virus while maintaining our economy. Don't think in absolutes, young retard.

>> No.14948039

>>14948016
Yes, but what actually happens is not the "abolishing" of firms, but the nationalization of them. There are not unlimited resources we can use to abolish existing mechanisms of resource distribution and them wholesale replace them from the ground up with horizontally integrated (rather than vertically integrated as you see with capitalist firms) "means of production". This results not in Amazon being abolished and The People's Glorious Dildo Farm being put in place to provide for the people who were using Amazon for essential services, but rather that Amazon becomes renamed The People's Glorious Dildo Farm and your middle and upper management class just becomes state actors rather than private ones. There is no future in which these firms are abolished in any meaningful sense. They can only collapse under their own weight (which attempting to nationalize them would significantly speed up). This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but usually when giant things fall they can land on people and create a big crater if you're not really careful about how you knock them down.

>> No.14948072
File: 225 KB, 800x1067, 1557875986577.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14948072

>>14945264
I love how socialists shadow box with this phantom of a concept such as "capitalism", when literally every first world country with few exceptions are borderline socialist already if not fully. Socialism used to be in contrast with the early 1900s "capitalism", the closest living representative of Capitalism there ever was, but when they essentially won with the government's further encroachment of private property and rights (note: this is a function of time, not because socialists actually did anything besides exist; governments, like tumors, tend to grow) they aren't satisfied with the conclusion their ideology has lead to. They reinvent the wheel, put more emphasis on cultural and racial aspects of socialism rather than economic, and label the product of a 100 years of their fuckry as "capitalism". Because a system where people exchange what are essentially worthless labor slips for products made by government-subsided companies and about 20 percent of earned salary goes to government agencies to be redistributed into shitty second-rate public services and into obese, negro single mothers' hands is the most capitalistic thing I ever heard of.

>> No.14948134

>>14945396
>I can see the virus changing politics but not breaking down systems of international finance such as federal banks, the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc. in the long term.
Those aren't exactly the system of international finance, those are the old Bretton Woods institutions set up to maintain the fixed peg system post-WWII that morphed into keeping governments imposing dumb policies that end up lowering growth. The IMF and World Bank could disappear tomorrow and private finance wouldn't be any the worse in the long run.

>>14947794
Bailouts don't exactly have a terrible track record, America did them and were a little more liberal and got a decade of financial growth. Europe tried to be more stingy and it didn't work and caused a lost decade of growth.

>>14948072
More people than ever before have a private stake in the continuance of private corporate enterprise. Socialism was more of a threat over a hundred years ago.

>> No.14948142
File: 137 KB, 682x722, 1576232836677.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14948142

>>14948134
>private corporate enterprise
I.e. not private at all. The modern corporation is basically another branch of the government.

>> No.14948173

>>14948142
Individually/family owned business isn't competitive or cost efficient and that was already the obvious case by the mid-1800's. You're right though that the rise, and extreme effectiveness, of corporations as the primary form of enterprise basically disproves any pretext of liberalism but still the more private the better it seems since outright socialism failed.

>> No.14948226

>>14948039
>Yes, but what actually happens is not the "abolishing" of firms, but the nationalization of them.
A lot of things happen, but they're not all socialism.

>There are not unlimited resources we can use to abolish existing mechanisms of resource distribution
Nothing here requires unlimited resources. It's mostly a matter of organizing EXISTING technical means in a different fashion.

>There is no future in which these firms are abolished in any meaningful sense.
Sure there is. Amazon has only existed for like 20 years out of the thousand years of human history, but I guess when you're 12 this might seem like eternity, which would indeed transform Amazon in imagination into something which will persist indefinitely.

>They can only collapse under their own weight
But that's exactly the same as their abolition, since those firms are not true discrete essences but alienated human powers.

>>14948072
Capital is way stronger than it was a 100 years ago, and tt subjugates more people than ever (a century ago there was still a lot of independent petty proprietors, even in Europe).

>>14948142
And the government is basically another branch of capital.

>> No.14948546

>>14948226
Abolition isn't just the ending of a practice but the result of an intentional and deliberated effort. The likelihood of Amazon coming to an end because people intentionally join together to stop them is much much smaller than them falling due to an internal misstep (which I would not consider abolition in any meaningful sense).

>> No.14948738

>>14948546
Amazon is capital and its abolition by a proletarian revolution IS at the same time its "failure due to an internal misstep", because proletariat which abolishes it is produced by capital itself (including that portion of capital which functions as "Amazon").

>> No.14948800 [DELETED] 
File: 159 KB, 945x1200, 71373558_10156706713327399_3056866028588892160_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14948800

>>14948019
Fascism is an equally dead meme. Whatever the revolution brings it won't be some failed ideology of yesteryear but an entirely new movement.

>> No.14949622

>>14948019
Fascism is never going to return and liberal degeneracy is never going away. Stop putting faith in shitty dead ideologies and live normally

>> No.14950368 [DELETED] 

>>14949622
Degeneracy isn't sustainable, it always ends.

>> No.14950485

>>14950368
No it doesn't. The 1960s solidified things like sexually promiscuous norms into becoming the default for modern societies. Do you think the West is ever going to give up abortion? Pornography? Dating? It's never going to happen, anything otherwise is seen as taboo by liberal nations, and removing any of those things will result in civil instability.

>> No.14950488

>>14946619
Capitalism itself isn't fragile when implemented with the proper failsafes. We are living with a degenerated capitalism. The virus attacked capitalism's blind spots. What is fragile is the byzantine international supply chain set up in the pursuit of capital efficiencies. These supply chains are actually inefficient in every way except for their cost savings. They are designed with the expectation of a frictionless world order buoyed by international trade agreements and the borderless free flow of capital. All these intermediate nodes between the chain's endpoints posit a possible point of failure with numerous chokepoints. For example, Hubei province in China is the world's go-to center for surgical masks, an inconvenient fact seeing that it was also the epicenter of the viral outbreak. Italy's Lombardy, a global producer for the nasopharyngeal swabs necessary to test for covid19, was also inconveniently impacted by severely the virus. These outcomes are not factored into the calculations which constructed them. Neoliberalism is an economic ideology founded on hermetic theoretical assumptions that exclude natural disasters and other "exogenous" factors from the equation, dealing with an idealized world where only financial abstractions prevail.

This globalized production structure is not a necessary feature of capitalism but a logical consequence of its pursuit of unregulated efficiency and the opening of global labor markets.

>> No.14950526 [DELETED] 
File: 91 KB, 830x1159, 05 fate - glubb.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14950526

>>14950485
>Do you think the West is ever going to give up abortion?
The West is dying and is approaching a collapse, there is no choice involved.

>> No.14950537

>>14949622
>>14950485
You're way too blackpilled, brother. But I know that you've become like that because you care. Don't give up hope, lest you fall into the unclimbable pit of despair forever.

>> No.14950598

>>14950485
The "right to an abortion" was imposed on America by unelected supreme court judges, entirely against the peoples will. What can be done with the courts can be just as easily undone if there's a will.

>> No.14950691

>>14948072
I wish people would stop conflating adding liquidity to a market to socialism. Its because of these actions capitalism has the (capital lol) to exist. So if you say buy 10 billion of stocks, its not socialism because you are legitimately creating conditions that allow money to flow and facilitate people investing in companies with little delay or problems.

>> No.14951372

>>14947952
Wow, you're an idiot.

>> No.14951384

>>14948134
Economic (((growth))) is evil.

>> No.14951414

>>14945264
Communists fucks cannot win so they have to rig the entire system by having direct democracy.


Choke to death on that stupid bullshit.

>> No.14951417

Orange man bad.

>> No.14951468

>>14945264
Capitalism and liberalism are the same thing retard your reply is totally redundant

>> No.14951613

>>14945396
Is Naomi Klein any good? I was recommended the Shock Doctrine but it’s so fucking long

>> No.14952956
File: 115 KB, 883x990, feelings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14952956

Hitchhiking on this thread to ask: Any good sources for why social Darwinism is wrong? Literally all I can find is "Hitler did it so it is bad", and a vague "scientific consensus" without any sources or specifics.

>> No.14953044

>>14951613
Sample online. She’s pretty good.

>> No.14954457

>>14948025
I hope USA stagnates... it's the only way to nerf your fascist executive.

>> No.14954491

>>14946792
It can work on all levels.

And you claim people are naive today, but I remember you had crazy presidents at times, remember the guy who wanted an alliance with the mole people at the center of the earth?

>> No.14954507

>>14947865
>The managerial class manufactures the majority of the produce of the working people.

Merely because for the convenience of CEO's - not because it's the most efficient way.
On the contrary, studies have indicated that often times managers impair the productivity of people, keep their wages low, block good ideas out of fear of losing their status... and then you have democratic departments - where the revenues produced are shared democratically which work fantastically well!
Check out how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Technologies is organized.

Check out how Ray Dalio organizes his company - that's also a preferable set of principles to hold by.

And at minimum - I'd go with a strategy like that of Warren Buffet.. yea you get managers, their main purpose is to generate you profit - but make sure you pick the nicest, most humane, bro tier people for that - and it'll be fine.

>> No.14954710

>>14945239
Librelism failed at the inception of the French Revoltion when the states of France where not allowed to succeed.
In America it failed at the Civil War when Democratic choice was superseded by Northern Aggression, gay ops and propaganda.

Liberalism failed a long time ago and people still believe it exists because of a meme projected by elites who need the plebs to be comfy while they rule the world.

>> No.14954909

The west has been falling faster since the sexual revolution

>> No.14955489

>>14954710
your "democratic choice" was ragequiting after losing a fair election

>> No.14955501

>>14952956
for the same reasons as "meritocracy"/technocracy. it's the self-justifying rule of experts. but who decides who gets to be experts? other experts, and they all have spouses and children who need jobs (as highly credentialed experts)

>> No.14955512

>>14945239
Liberalism has been failing with about two decades, but I have a hunch that it's one of those things that's just going to keep failing indefinitely.

>> No.14955776

>>14951613
>Is Naomi Klein any good? I was recommended the Shock Doctrine but it’s so fucking long
No. It is just conspiracy theory shit.
She based her book on an out of context quote by Milton Friedman.

I would like to add that I'm not a libertarian, I think libertarianism had a negative effect on society and I completely disagree with Friedman's biggest assumption... But she was dishonest with him and I can't take her seriously.

>> No.14955786

>>14950485
>No it doesn't. The 1960s solidified things like sexually promiscuous norms into becoming the default for modern societies.
Yeah. To the point that many people believe that the sexual norms of the Sexual Revolution were eternal, that people always followed them.

>> No.14955815

>>14955776
her "shock" analogy seems like it is a totally in bad faith language game par excellence.

>> No.14957250

>>14954710
Liberalism has always been absurdly fragile, it's only had about 30 years of relative domination

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action