Capitalism bad

Yes. It leads to more immigration then communism ever did. However monarchy would be the best system

they do that by nature. you don't have to set up a special system for that to happen.
the only times that's not the case is during war or a tyranny/dictatorship.
in any system where private property is protected, rich people will rule unless you tax them heavily.

>However monarchy would be the best system
Good lord no, its basically

>uuh...yeah I spoke to god and...uh... he told me that i should be KING !!!!

you can elect a monarch you fucking imbecile

Better then either capitalism or communism. Abandoning christianity is what led america to this clownworld we see around us.

>turns men into monsters
>encourages swindling dumb people at every turn
>lets the hard working everyday man suffer while the witty swindler profits
YEH ITS GREAT

Retarded. There was a specific development pathway that led to the birth of capitalism.
The Dutch Republic is typically seen as where it all came together, at an end of tying developments made between the Northern and Italian Renaissances and German trading cities into one system.
Its no older than the 1600s.

>they do that by nature.
kek, there's no such thing as "human nature" from our perspective, because we have been brainwashed since we were kids about what reality is and what are its rules. 75% of our nature is pure brainwash.

Go live in Saudi Arabia then you tremendously retarded subhumans

>While a select few monarchs are democratically elected, the overwhelming majority inherit their position from a relative (usually a parent) who was the previous monarch.
exceptions don't make the rule, uncultured swine

If I'm a caveman and someone offers me riches (food and clothes in that time I guess) I'd be willing to do his bidding.
Provided I don't think it's feasable to just kill him and take what's his.
It's pretty natural. People trade. Rich people just have more they can trade.

not really capitalism bad more like money and the worship of wealth became more predominant during the early 20th century. what do you think daniel means when he yells "I am the third revelation!!!" at the end?

are you describing Daniel or Eli?

here's an idea: once the usa ceases to be the world will revert to presidential dictators / elected kings

all isms are bad

No it won’t, you are so fucking stupid holy shit

Capitalism is an economic system that allows for the private ownership of the means of production (inb4 commie, MoP isn't a strictly Marxist term). Most of what's listed in this thread are consequences of capitalism.
It is a system, no society exists without a system as societies form systems, even if said systems have an individualistic culture that pretends there is no system.
Capitalists hold all the power because capital translates to power - true.
Monarchies were objectively shit compared to capitalism. You wouldn't be a noble, you'd be a peasant digging up shit to eat like 95% of feudal subjects, except we're technologically advanced enough for you to rumble around in trashcans instead. Also, freedom of movement is a relatively recent development, one that favors employers as it expands the labor pool (making it cheaper). Commies didn't need to make labor cheaper - no point in immigration.
Christianity and Judaism are the two religions that always got cucked to the prevailing economic system, whether it's feudalism, capitalism, or even communism.
That you write about cavemen is in itself because you're culturally inclined to think in terms of some primal instincts (most of them selfish) that regulate life. You didn't get that cultural background from the soil, grass or trees.
Also, trading doesn't make a system capitalistic, but capitalism relies on trade.
Capitalism IS the worship of wealth. Capital IS wealth.
Then explain your moronism.

Thank you for coming to my FAG talk.

No, because they ain't white. Nor christian.

>Christianity and Judaism are the two religions that always got cucked to the prevailing economic system, whether it's feudalism, capitalism, or even communism.
America was highly functional until boomers abandoned christianity for hedonism and money. They helped open the borders.

MILKSHAKE!

Based

>Capitalism is a system were capitalist hold all the political power
Show me a single political system or even historical society where the people who held all the power did not also controll all the capital.

god i wish i could have grown up around peak christianity

We will see a resurgence. Stress births religion.

Attached: severian_and_the_undine.jpg (718x1000, 319.09K)

>Capitalism IS the worship of wealth. Capital IS wealth.
That's the socialist spin on it because capitalism as a term is ultimately a pejorative for a free market system. That term, which existed before capitalism, is what it is all about - economic FREEDOM. Capitalism exists as a term to imply an absolutely unhinged pursuit of profit, and it's now taken on a vague, abstract meaning where it's applied to anything involving profit, like that Mexican nationalized company with the oil fire last year that was lambasted as capitalism, because there's some corrupt richfag Mexicans involved in there somewhere. The stupid term capitalism is on one hand a dishonest pejorative when meant to be synonmous with something very specific like a free market economy and on the other something so fucking nebulous that it has no real meaning. Anyhow, shit like modern America is not capitalism where we take it to mean free market, i.e. it's hyper regulated industries that form monopolies, government subsidisation of industries and companies, etc. Ironically, the Scandinavian countries burger socialists pine after have a far freerer, deregulated economy compared to the US.

TL;DR - reject the term capitalism, stop playing by the leftist rulebook.

Not that user, but thats like saying this person is sick from poison, lets feed him more to make him healthy. Capitalism must sustain itself exponentially as it gets bigger. It will inevitably engage in free trade, which will inevitably bring in more immigrants. Diversity leads to implosion via ethnic warfare. You're thinking only about economics.

Attached: 34029dd67c596a6f58be010f51f0bb0d[1].jpg (600x600, 75.13K)

nazism

Wrong series but close enough. I still haven't read all warhammer lore.

-.-

Probably both, Eli was a capitalist too. He just combined it with religion.

>Ironically, the Scandinavian countries burger socialists pine after have a far freerer, deregulated economy compared to the US.
Probably because they don't have huge megacorps funding the politicians

>on monday
I’m on the clock right now. I hate my life.

>destroying culture BAD
>destroying nature BAD
>destroying soul BAD

peak christianity was europe in 1350 right before the black death hit. it hasnt been the same since

Leftists (or rather the old leftists) believe capitalism necessarily leads to the worship of wealth. You can disagree with them, but misrepresenting Marxism and then refuting it won't do much good. Contemporary leftists unironically do a better job in discrediting leftism.
As an aside most things mentioned in this thread, e.g. hedonism, loss of spirituality (christianity and its values) are all things Marx was bitching about. Both are mentioned in the Communist manifesto, plus the shitting up of families. Imo. if Americans actually read Marx they'd be marching under a picture of Lenin, waving red flags. Not sure if that's a good thing.

I don't hate Paul Dano. In fact I'd say I like him. But it's very satisfying seeing him cry, get beat up, scream...

Attached: 1631797939700.jpg (945x1083, 146.79K)

Stop trying to steal my shit

Personally I'm more of an anarcho-mutualism kind of a person

wow, can you teach me to be smart like you, I'm really impressed with your intelligence.

It’s easy bro, just read good books.

Not that user but
>Monarchies were objectively shit compared to capitalism
is not true. Many societies existed where monarchs did not wield undue power. That idea is very Eurocetric. In the 1990s it was argued that the modern person worked more than medieval peasants. If not true then it is certainly true for many today. How many people today work one job in the day and another in the evenings? Internet, electricity, and "standard of living" comparisons are meaningless. Yes most today would find it very hard to live without them, but they did it very easily back then.
>Also, freedom of movement is a relatively recent development
This is also not true. Ancient peoples travelled more and farther than people today. Traders crossed oceans and continents. In much of the world people could travel or move knowing they would be welcomed, sometimes by strangers, sometimes by other settlements of their own people. Evidence exists of group and individual migrations, settlements of one group spanning continents and intermingling with other groups, meeting places where people from great distances would travel for trading, spiritual purposes.

Being welcomed by individuals isn't a legal/institutional allowment though, it's people being kind. Peasants and tradesmen were bound to their land, the nobility was free to move. Before that, there was no institutional power to keep immigration in check. Even then, when large in scale, the power to disallow or allow settlement rested in the ruler's hands, e.g. Rome allowing in certain groups, turning away others. Schengen is an innovation, it's not by accident the EU sucks itself off about it.

>t. Juden

Daniel Day Lewis was a god awful actor

>Being welcomed by individuals isn't a legal/institutional allowment though,
Rights are functional. If I have the capability to move I have the right to move. If I don't have the capability to move I do not have the right to move. Either way, it is unimportant what is or is not written down.
>Peasants and tradesmen were bound to their land, the nobility was free to move
Your vision of history is very limited in time and space.

>But it's very satisfying seeing him cry, get beat up, scream...
It's hot, you can just come out and admit it.

I don’t think that was the message. It’s objectively true that capitalism turns all that is solid into gas. It has led to innovations that have led to humanity being able to live post scarcity, before capitalism society was a constant battle of survival, as humans couldn’t produce enough surplus to survive the never ending ebs and flows of nature, however if left to it’s logical conclusion the result is total annihilation.

Before capitalism people could produce surpluss just fine, it just wasnt profitable

Correct.

Did you watch the movie?

A very slight cold uptick quite literally helped reduced Europe’s population by more than half around the 13th century, albeit accompanied by a plague but there is lots of evidence that the abundance of plague carrying rats was the result of an already existing famine.

Surpluses could be created when temperatures were ideal and static. When even slight variations happened it could cause generalized collapse, that largely isn’t true anymore.

And peoples susceptibility to a plague by malnutrition*

There were similar instances in earlier periods