What are the most warranted critiques of capitalism by the political left?

The nuclear family was not created, our biological bond with our immediate family members is one of the only naturally occurring behavioral phenomena I can think of. It requires a special form of indoctrination to deny what is readily knowable to all humans from the moment of birth.

>the nuclear family destroys itself
No, commies destroy the nuclear family (as is apparent by your post)

I'm not depriving anyone of anything.
Your point is moot either way, since humans don't live in vacuums and almost no one is inclined to forgo everything they know to adopt an entirely alien lifestyle. Most do not know why they are so miserable and see no realistic alternative to their current lifestyle. Even tradcaths that pine for a more holy way of life struggle to leap into the Benedict Option.
Also stop replying to me as if I'm a leftist and not simply someone answering OP's question you cock loving triplefaggot

>Your parents cease to be your immediate family when you have children
Okay, have fun letting some random nanny raise your children instead of their grandparents.

You don’t know what you’re talking about and so know nothing of what we’re telling. STOP POSTING

even if there is a problem, the solution isn't a murderous ideology.

My friend, let us remember that nowhere and never was the transition from the feudal to the bourgeois régime made without violent disturbances.

>the nuclear family destroys itself
>I will neither clarify what I mean nor provide evidence of this assertion
Okay lesbian pseud

>The culture industry is making us all miserable degenerates
As one other user said, but isnt also the left that has all those extremist "Humanitarian" and "utilitarian" views that basically tell that of us need to be "cucks" and switch partners all the time, and enter an almost Brave New World kind of society?

Sorry but i might be understanding wrong something. What do you define "nuclear family"? Just the couple and the childreen with no regard for the grand parents and rest of the family?

Marx's idea of the alienation of labor has been magnified by orders of magnitude since his time. In America I would guess that the majority of workers don't see any tangible outcome from their work, whether that's because they're drones going over numbers in an office building or because they're shittily paid service workers in a chain where they have no impact on the company's success or anywhere in the middle.
Edward Bernays' influence on advertising has effectively dissolved American culture into a hellscape of ads and disgusting consumerism.
There's the most obvious and general critique from an outside perspective, which is that maximizing capital and maximizing public benefit are not the same goal, and are often explicitly at odds. In the US an enormous pharmaco-medical industry has made an obscenely large amount of money, for example, but also put large portions of the country in debt, created an opioid crisis, etc. It IS the most effective, efficient way to make money off of a healthcare system because capitalism has successfully selected for this, but it irrevocably damages the population in the process. This particular critique is only going to steadily get more and more obvious as I think younger generations are acutely aware that the "prosperity" that older generations enjoyed in the golden age of capitalism is now more concentrated and has more clear consequences. Mentioning environmental causes on any board turns into a shitshow but these are probably going to be some of the most glaring examples of this when they really start to kick in. Automation could have a similar effect.

A nuclear family is just two parents and their immediate children, yes. More traditional societies tend to live in larger family groups, where older family members (grandparents usually) who no longer work take care of young children while parents work. This makes the family a more cohesive unit that better protects traditions and maintains values and cultures over generations.
Capitalism in the west is much more encouraging of children to move out on their own, where they can buy their own house, their own appliances, their own groceries, etc. They start with an apartment where they live alone, then get married and move to a nice big house, then have children who they need to keep in daycare because grandma is in a retirement home. The children hit 18 and enter the cycle themselves. This is encouraged because it maximizes consumption - more, bigger houses each generation instead of a family home. Europeans might live in the same house their great-great-great-grandparents did; I don't even know what country mine lived in. This erodes culture and tradition and hurts familial relationships.
Marx said the nuclear family was harmful, and the right knew what his point was but have intentionally misrepresented it as "Karl Marx wants Obama to steal your children from you and lock them up in commie camps!" because that's an incredibly easy way to instill fear. Really, Marx was in favor of family units that are even MORE traditional and resilient.

Capitalism can be defined as an economic system predicated on the freedom of private enterprise. What makes an economy capitalist is the absense of state intervention in free trade. If this the “right,” economically, then the “left” is: government regulation. Therefore, the critique should be from the economic “left”, not against cultural ideas like the nuclear family, but against the freedom of private enterprise.

Lobbying, bailouts, patented AIDS medication(coerced monopolies), central banking, and many more practices in “capitalist” America are state intervention; the antithesis of that which upon capitalism is predicated.

This is the "left" within the confines of capitalism, which is what most people in America refer to when they use the word "liberal." It is not the left outside of capitalism, which looks on "capitalism but with regulations" as a half-assed non-solution. A large portion of self-described leftists (not American self-described liberals) wouldn't consider anything upholding the general system of capitalism, with or without state intervention, as leftist at all, and I would probably agree with them.
I assume from the wording of OP's question and the picture of Marx that he's specifically talking about critiques coming from the left outside of the confines of capitalism.
I also feel like calling America the antithesis of capitalism is an obvious sign that your argument is fucked from the start. I guess the ideal libertarian state or ideal anarcho-capitalist non-state would be more capitalist, but in reality lobbying, bailouts, and central banking are absolutely symptoms of capitalism.

America's entire existence in the 21st century is a parade of retarded capitalism accelerating to hell

Attached: f00dew09d48z.png (1200x672, 608K)

I did not assert, “America is the antithesis of capitalism”, but that state intervention is antithetical to the principle of a capitalist economy. I say capitalism is an economic system, not a system of government. A truly capitalist regime would not practice these things, so as to bastardized the freedom of their market. And when they are being practiced, capitalism is not being practiced, that capitalism should not be blamed.

What state is more capitalist than America? Tiny tax havens?
Unfettered capitalism with no government interference at all sounds like an absolute nightmare, all of the problems brought up in other sections of the thread would only be compounded. Is your answer that no critiques of capitalism are valid because capitalism doesn't exist?

Libertarians are such fucking jokes

Attached: PFoXimf.png (1607x892, 512K)

The valid critique of capitalism addresses the question: What are the negative symptoms of unregulated private enterprise? As an example, companies should not be permitted to dump their waste into rivers. Ideally, it is the duty of the government to punish and prevent this action through law. I have not stated I am in favour of unfettered capitalism, I have stated that cultural responses to the world such as materialism, commercialism, are byproducts of the imaginings of men, not as negative symptoms of the economic theory of capitalism. Capitalism should not be considered a cultural theory.

The problem I see is: When America is deemed to be an example of pure economic theory, capitalism, then every practice of American states and business is used to critique capitalism, and the word itself becomes corrupted.

That seems like a more reasonable approach than what I thought you were getting at, but I would argue that capitalism inciting rampant consumerism and materialism in its adherents is a serious consequence that cam't be overlooked. The frailty of the human psyche is to blame, but human weakness is something that unfortunately has to be considered when you're trying to decide how the world should be run, and if your economic system turns to shit because of mankind then it isn't a good fit for mankind.
If everyone was perfectly rational, generous, and civic-minded, capitalism would work, but so would pretty much anything else.
It is held as the example because it is winning capitalism. It used that system to catapult itself to being the global superpower and has fought dozens of wars to cement global capitalism for the past century.

Capitalism eventually begets soul-destroying materialism and allows the greed of Man to wreck havoc but is a necessary evil. Communism is worse.

Capital is sentient

If a king decides to be greedy and evil, monarchy shouldn't be blamed, but the guilt falls the ruler himself. Likewise, if American rulers are corrupted, or citizens themselves are corrupted, capitalism shouldn't be blamed, but the men themselves. If a socialist state is corrupt and the government ruling class is greedy and oppressive, socialism shouldn't be blamed, but the men themselves. Private enterprise begets liberty, but if the liberty is misused, through evil or stupidity, private enterprise shouldn't be blamed.

America is also a superpower because they established their states on a vast and very wealthy land which they conquered with relative ease.

>world is finite
space exploration
>The culture industry is making us all miserable degenerates
Capitalism destroys families and communties
Marx thinks these are good things btw, eventually all that`s left is that we are humans
These are valid critiques of capitalism by the political right
>Economies without worker's rights makes being a worker miserable
>Economies without worker's rights
sounds like socialist countries, where there`s no freedom of association, unions are submissive to the state who is at the same time the only employer.

In your example the king is the guilty party, but the system of monarchy is demonstrably flawed by allowing a greedy and evil king to have absolute power and abuse it.
Likewise, capitalism is demonstrably flawed because it rewards selfish and destructive behavior. The counterpoints are that A) capitalism itself isn't the one to blame for being selfish and destructive, and B) it might reward altruistic and beneficial behavior if all consumers were rational, informed, and beneficent, but again neither of those matter when you're critiquing the actual application of a system to real life.

>space exploration
Utopian. People like you should be executed for stupidity.
>Capitalism destroys families and communties
Yep.
>sounds like socialist countries, where there`s no freedom of association, unions are submissive to the state who is at the same time the only employer.
You know that in socialist countries you never had to worry about unemployment, you could steal shit from factories without that much of a problem and be fucking lazy? They hardly had shit worker rights and in many ways beter than in capitalist countries.

If a king was truly wise, just, and righteous, would not he be a better ruler than a democratically elected representative who was evil? Any system of power can be abused, and all governments have their authority.

A businessman must provide a service that is valued by the consumer to be rewarded under capitalism. This is mutually beneficial. It is not altruistic business, but self-incentivized. If the businessman seeks to become wealthy, without braking the rules, then he must provide a highly valued service. Men's values are flawed, but no economic system will ever change that. Capitalism isn't to be blamed for men's skewed values, but capitalism could be credited with the economic liberty men possess, to engage in free trade.

Billions in poverty, many in slave labor conditions, massive accumulated wealth in hands of tiny few. It's not rocket surgery.

Attached: bezos cannibalism.jpg (750x500, 53K)

Bezos accrued his wealth through Amazon, a highly valued service. It is essentially the best place to acquire goods. I live in a small, isolated rural area, and I can still acquire goods for inexpensive prices through his service. This service is available to a vast number of people, and it is a good service, so Bezos is now wealthy. What a man chooses to do with his wealth is not be judged by me, but the service of Amazon is of benefit to me.

Acquiring wealth through fraud or theft is evil, but acquiring wealth through business is not, so long as you don't break the rules. (I am not speaking of Bezos or Amazon specifically.)

>you could steal shit from factories without that much of a problem and be fucking lazy?

that's an argument in favor of socialism?
aren't the factories collectively owned, meaning if you steal from them, you're stealing from your neighbor?

Ugh, tripfags are the worst. For sure you're a kid.

As always, a fucking retard wastes his repeating digits.
No one claims that socialism is only predicated on government intervention. That is a nigger-tier strawman and you should feel bad.

Even worse, "she's" a middle aged transvestite larping as an educated socialist.

It's about the system in general, not any one rich guy, I just like this picture. War profiteering is another big problem, as is the impending ecological collapse. Anyway, fuck off back to /pol/ with the retards there you parasite, this isn't literature.

>that's an argument in favor of socialism?
I'm just saying it wasn't an distopia where workers had no rights. If you ask me I have no problems with workers slacking off or taking stuff from factories if it doesn't cause economic problems.
>aren't the factories collectively owned, meaning if you steal from them, you're stealing from your neighbor?
I guess kind of if we are so autistic about this. There is personal and public property under socialism and USSR even had a somewhat large legal private sector. It was stealing but even after that the factories still had goods.

Private enterprises do not create war, the state creates war. A private business will provide weaponry, because where there is demand, there is wealth to be earned, but the demand was created by the state, not by the people, and not by capitalism.

It sometimes seems like communists care about a lot of the same things traditionalists do.

Yikes

Well thanks for the explaination.
But why would someone that likes the concepts of having parents and family not like the destruction of the "nuclear" family? Why would anyone look down on big family circles?
Aside from the social stigma that the word "tradicionalism" brings i was always afraid that the more "progressive" and "extreme" left wet dream was to really push a Brave New World society where families no longer existed. And I've seen a lot of references during books (like Crime And Punisment for example) where the "progressive" "humanitarian" and utilitarian is always someone that wants to reform society in a way to maximize utility and get rid of "useless" concepts such as family and even romance.

The state and private enterprise are interwoven with each other. It's naive to think companies don't have a lot to get from wars and wouldn't get into them without the state if it turned a profit for them.

>If a king was truly wise, just, and righteous, would not he be a better ruler than a democratically elected representative who was evil? Any system of power can be abused, and all governments have their authority.
Yes, and yes.
>A businessman must provide a service that is valued by the consumer to be rewarded under capitalism.
The consumer's value often has terrible consequences. In the case of Bezos, he treats his lower-level employees worse than cattle, and there are countless stories of Amazon warehouse workers having to piss in bottles at work or passing out from exhaustion in the middle of their shift. Walmart operates similarly, earning billions of dollars in profit while their employees need food stamps to eat. McDonald's released pic related as part of a "financial advice" pamphlet, telling their employees the only way they could reasonably survive off of their wages was to get a second job and not pay for heat or groceries. Nestle pumps water out of poor arid regions to sell to rich consumers on the other side of the world.
This all produces great value for the consumer, but at a societal price that isn't worth it. This isn't even entering into the fact that capitalism doesn't reward all worthy innovation and does reward plenty of absolutely retarded shit.
>Private enterprises do not create war, the state creates war.
Hahaha holy shit, you actually still believe that? I was pretty young at the time but even I figured out what a pig Dick Cheney was later.
In a country where capital has become so unbelievably powerful that it controls the government, its interests absolutely can and do determine whether or not we go to war. It's been going on since at least Guatemala in the 50s.

Attached: mcdonald-budget.png (467x588, 96K)

you have no foresight if you think widespread theft won't cause economic problems
breadlines existed for a reason

>thinks people who own cars are in "poverty"

dumb first worlder

This is a complicated issue that will get you different answers depending on who you ask, even among leftists. It's very strongly tied to cultural mores.
Some leftists are all about progressivism, some see a lot of those issues as distractions from or flimsy band-aids on the "real" issues.

If a king was just ok, just looking out for the long term success of his property then he'd be better than a wise, just and righteous democratic ruler.

I never wanted widespread theft. Just that a person taking a thing here and there isn't a problem. Breadlines weren't really a thing untill late 80s and a lot of that can be blamed on gorby retarded reforms. Like I said I have no problems with people working less if it doesn't cause economic problems.

Was he black?

Only states create war, but if they do so unjustly, with monied interests, at the behest of the wealthy, "capitalism" is not be faulted, as though unjust war were a principle of capitalism. Many armies have gone to war with the sole purpose of plundering riches, or at the behest of the wealthy.

Why are men forced to take these jobs? There have always been terrible working conditions. That is something ancient. The causes of economic hardship in the west, which forces men to work jobs they hate, cannot be reduced to the term, "capitalism."

All governments can be critiqued, but the only alternative solution seems to be, "a just government."

Since capitalism is an economic theory predicated on the principles of the free market, a government could provide a universal basic income, and still be considered capitalist, if they only regulated their market to a just extent. They could provide socialized healthcare, and every other facet of their market could be considered capitalist, and only the healthcare would be considered socialized.

Capital becoming so bloated that it overtakes the state itself is only possible in unregulated capitalism. It is a negative consequence of capitalism and only capitalism.
Any issue of any economic or political system can be blamed on men's faults, but unless we're designing a state for omniscient benevolent aliens, issues created within and exacerbated by capitalism because of men's faults ARE issues of capitalism.

Hasn't money always influenced corrupt states? The state being influenced by corporations is the flavour of injustice of the modern system, but bankers or wealthy families influencing governments is nothing new.

Basically, we define capitalism differently, so I don't want to use the term loosely and cause our argument to veer.

Attached: 1523344975955.jpg (727x639, 62K)

first of all stop reading jews

Attached: bud spencer.jpg (1200x1652, 218K)

>Isn’t a necessary part of communism destroying the nuclear family and surrendering your children to the community
Is this a joke/satire or am I missing something? How has no one said anything. Where on earth does it say a prerequisite for communism is destroying the nuclear family? Like what.

For real tho why do young people defend capitalism. I get it if you're a boomer, rich or land owner but a young person? Why?

We will all sturggle to have children. Our work is increasingly casualised. in every western country having a stable job has gone from the norm to a gift from god. Then your wages are dead and the price of property is so far out of reach. Then you and your wife will have to work and wont even raise the kid. And on top of it all your rights as a worker will continue to be eroded way by the rich. Look as South Korea, japan or most western countries. We aren't even at replacement level.

Secular stagnation is real. look at how boomers got jobs spo easy, now look at the hoops we jump through for entry level shit. imagine what our kids will have to do.

Our whole culture is predicated on consumption. Anything real is tossed away. People are just grinded down to be consumers. America is just oligarchy now. it is a verifiable fact.

Attached: 1551331018128.png (500x600, 71K)

>Only states create war, but if they do so unjustly, with monied interests, at the behest of the wealthy, "capitalism" is not be faulted, as though unjust war were a principle of capitalism
This is dumb and you should feel bad. Capitalism requires the state to exist. The end result of capitalism is frims capturing the state. e.g. regulatory capture. Capitalists waging war for money is capitalist

uhhh, self-awareness: 0
subconscious projection: yes

correction: civilization requires the state to exist.

This. Well put, thank you.

Marxist-Leninism and other authoritarian socialist movements are not communism.
Do you know China is planning big changes by 2050?

You say this after the explanation’s been given. Slow children crossing

Bullshit toady coward

>unironically using the “not real communism” argument

In that case, anything bad about capitalism isn’t real capitalism.

Reminder that people who call people c ucks are the people that also say this shit

It's a fair point considering communism has always been a utopian ideal that has been well defined for 200 odd years. The better argument would be the USSR would be a tyoe of socialism.

Soon most jobs will be automated and consumers will have no money.

>Archer: "Noah, where the hell does this (ladder) go?"
>Noah: "I don't know, down?"
>Archer: "Wow, you're only a doctoral candidate?"
>Noah: "Hey, guy, my field's anthropology."
>Riley: "Heh heh! Good luck with the job hunt."
>Archer: "Right?"
>Noah: "Not that it's any of your business, but I plan to teach."
>Archer: "Anthropology?"
>Noah: "Wha--? Yes!
>Riley: "To anthropology majors?"
>Noah: "Hey, you know what?"
>Archer: "Thus completing the circle of 'Why bother?'"

This is what the end of capitalism looks like

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 21K)

Capitalism isn't even fucking real. It's just a word Marx made up to describe every existing system in the history of the human race that wasn't a Benedictine monastery.

It's sort of like if you invented a word, let's call it "Badism," and ascribed it to the entire fucking history of the world. Every time something bad happens it's Badism's fault because of course it would have to be, Badism is all there has ever been. You propose the inevitability and virtues of Goodism, something that has never existed where only good things happen. Of course Goodism can't be at fault because it's never existed. You then accuse everyone who doesn't want to destroy civilization, murder a bunch of children and starve 10 million Ukranians to death to slice off thick slabs of rich, red roast beef for Jews of being a "Badist," and a bunch of really stupid people fall for it.

In reality, of course, "Capitalism" is not a system or an ideology but the default state of being. Scarcity is what defines the animal experience in our world, and scarcity demands an economy. The way economies work is intrinsically tied to the personal agency and ownership of goods and properties, every step removed that the economy becomes from that point reduces its allocation efficiency. The greatest trick the Left ever pulled was convincing people to use the word "Capitalism" unironically when really, the word we should use is "Life."

>Capitalism isn't even fucking real
>but the default state of being
> It's just a word Marx made up
>tfw you ignore 99.9% of history to own the libs
also screenshotted and saved. This is pure kino.

Attached: 1550071225598.jpg (743x742, 143K)

I agree, I’m only using the word theoretically to imagine a state where trade is free. Maybe “money” is more accurate than “life”. Money-ism. The purity of the ideal of the society which introduces currency.

Master of spooks.

>In reality, of course, "Capitalism" is not a system or an ideology but the default state of being. Scarcity is what defines the animal experience in our world, and scarcity demands an economy. The way economies work is intrinsically tied to the personal agency and ownership of goods and properties, every step removed that the economy becomes from that point reduces its allocation efficiency.
Are you seriously claiming that animals have what can be described as a political economy? You see no difference historically or between species in the form of life? That's some real serious reification. Capitalism isn't about scarcity or exchange it's a particular form of social organization where all of society progressively becomes dominated by the relations of capital... rationalization and accountancy, under forms such as double-entry book-keeping, result in a qualitatively different stage of humanity which empirically even to the most naive imbecile should be obvious.

>capitalism is math

Do you know that they are not advocating agaisnt the existance of families, right?
It was already explained very well ( ) that they are in fact promoting even closer family bonding like staying in closer contact with your grandparents, uncles and so on.
I honestly dont think its very realistic to believe you can make a more community based society when even concepts such as family were to be destroyed.
Many countries such as iceland had major alcohol and crime rates and managed to become some of the safest by simply promoting better parenting by making parents spending more time with their kids and rest of the family, instead of having them glued to TV ads all day and doing dumb shit with other kids.

I just came back from a half an hour break just to laugh at this again. This genuinely might be the dumbest thing I have read this year

Attached: 1533970762721.png (231x243, 37K)

now THIS is a high iq post

I understand what him and you are saying, but why would Marx want stronger families when a strong family inherently acts in its own self-interest? The foremost priority of a good parent is to satisfy the needs of your child even if it is at the expense of other children, which is an attitude that has no place in a communist society.

lmao

1 Guitar Center
2 The nonflavored packet of oatmeal in a box of flavored oatmeals
3 Embarrassing advertisements for pharmaceuticals.
4. Any given district of a city which is dominated by strip malls

You guys (trannies) can laugh but his point is accurate; capitalism, as far as economic systems are concerned, is the default state which most closely mimics the workings of the animal kingdom. In capitalism you have one goal: acquire as much as you can and ensure your own survival. As in nature, you’re free to do as you please without coercion and without some elite assholes demanding that you allocate the resources that you yourself acquired to other people. There’s just less protections for you. In a natural default state of survival there would be no rules and (for the most part) no community to serve, and the less your behavior is regulated by an economic system the closer that economic system is to nature.

>Animals do it
1. Animals regularly eat their own shit
2. There are just as many examples of collaborative tribal animals who succeed in collectivist groups without any notion of private property as there are animals in your masturbatory gladiator fantasy, and early hunter-gatherer humans were one of them

On that specific regard i cannot explain to you, since i dont know anything about their politics in that deep level. Maybe some other user might explain it to you.
But i honestly think that promoting more family bonding is more beneficial for the individual and his long term health. Not everything that doesnt directly imply community work means it must stop existing. Trying to create a human without any parental figures might be a nice recepy for more unnecessary individualism in the long run and fanatism.

Appealing to nature is a very common falacy. It doesnt have anything to do with nature and in fact i highly doubt you would want to live as closely to the "natural" as you try to appeal to want.

Capitalism is the best of a bad bunch. What system would you support in its stead? How do you intend to not succumb to its pitfalls, many of which are the same eventualities we see now under capitalism?

Of all of the 'political theories' I'm aware of, capitalism is the most modular and adaptable, especially the American version. It's capable of absorbing ideas from a wide variety of positions and making them work in its system.

I'm just saying, it's still not that hard to fix the system we have, compared to the changes people on the left of the spectrum seem to promote. It's literally designed to be fixable, to be able to update itself without a massive upheaval.

There's still time to fix it.

Except those communities were very small and formed out of necessity. The only way to get millions upon millions of people to cooperate in a similar way is through tyrannical coercion.

capitalism encourages wastefulness. we purposefully create cheap, disposable products instead of long-lasting products because it helps create shitty jobs, more long-term spending. it's one of the major oils that keeps the economic wheel turning "efficiently" when efficiency means exponentially wasting natural resources, hurting wildlife, and turning natural scenery into dumps.

monopolistic or oligarchical capitalist systems concentrate economic power so strongly where even supposed democratic governments cater to corporate giants instead of the general public's best interest (literally happening right now). unchecked corporate power will lead to fascism. or as we have it right now, socialism for corporations only when you consider we literally spend twice as much on corporate welfare than we do social welfare. also consider citizens united. i mean wtf.

i could go on but these are off the top of my head.

i'm no socialist, i guess i'm a social democrat who believes in capitalism, but serious progressive taxation.

The more I learn, the more I'm convinced that there isn't anything that can get millions upon millions of people to truly cooperate. Transparency, honesty, and accountability all completely go out the window when you start scaling up a human society to that degree and all of history since we were in small city-states has been the unending struggle of trying to account for that.
The ease with which people can poke holes in opposing ideologies while failing to support their own is because nobody can actually fix the disgusting mess that is people in large groups. We simply aren't good enough to participate in any economic or political system. We're fucked in the head.

Sounds like a traditionalist arguments my desu senpai

Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same coin