Ethics & Values

[Pixel--Dude]

Because you can’t just automate all labor away. I’m sure you’ve had the frustrating experience of calling a bank or some other corporate office where they wanted you to get your issue with whatever solved by a robot. It doesn’t work, and you are practically yelling at the phone “let me talk to a human!”

But we have the technology now to automate most of the menial jobs that are totally soul destroying. Robots can do these menial tasks repeatedly without need of a wage or any breaks, the only reason it won't work at the minute is because of capitalism itself. In a capitalist society the automation of labour means that lots of people just end up on welfare and are unable to provide for themselves. There is a hotel in Japan run mostly by robots. There are even machines which can help with surgical procedures.

Automate all the shit and eliminate pointless production of shit that nobody needs. Free more people to learn vocational skills and take the strain off important things like the NHS. In my envisioned society there would be no corporate offices and no need to speak with automated answering machines.

Sharing resources equally sounds like communism. Communism was a complete disaster and I’m not willing to give it any benefit of the doubt that “this time it will work.” When it has already been a horrific failure over and over again.

When did I advocate for communism? I am talking about a brand new system which transcends capitalism and its redundancy. This is something people should be thinking about. Capitalism is unsustainable, but we wanna keep flogging this dead horse to keep a very small minority living their lives of luxury at our expense.

Our work day may technically be 40+ hours a week but in practice it isn’t because people spend a lot of time at work not actually doing work. This isn’t just my workplace I’ve read a study that says the average employee only effective works 5 hours a day because they spend the other three hours or so talking to co-workers or playing with their phone. I make most of my posts here when I’m at work because I have nothing to do. My work involves me responding to issues when they pop up and sometimes nothing happens for a solid hour or so and even then I might be able to solve it in like two minutes.

Which study was that, then? So many jobs are different that it would be impossible to pinpoint exactly how many hours people work. Besides, what does it matter what you are doing? The point is that most people don't want to be there at all, regardless of whether they are actually producing crap or twiddling their thumbs. Most times people get told to "look busy". Like pretending to work if there is no work makes any sense at all lol

Personally I would prefer it if we weren’t physically at work as long but more productive while we were there. At my job that would simply be impossible.

Work is just the reality of life on Earth. We can try to reduce it but eliminating it from your life is impossible. If you want to never work again then try to get into heaven. But it’s not going to happen on Earth because letting people treat work like it’s optional will result in society falling apart. We’re already getting a taste of that with the number of people nowadays who are treating work like it’s optional and you can feel it. Things do not run as effectively as they did before the pandemic. Things that broke down around the house that you used to be able to hire somebody to come out tomorrow to fix you now have to wait a month or two for. I had to replace my drivers license because I fell victim to a scam where somebody was trying to steal my identity and they required me to schedule an appointment and that appointment wasn’t for two months. So I had to wait two months while the person could potentially be stealing my identity because the department of motor vehicles office didn’t have enough workers.

How does working for a company and earning fiat currency have any basis in reality? That sounds like such an NPC thing to say

It would result in the collapse of capitalist society, yes! That's the point. Capitalism is unsustainable anyway and besides which the reality is that our society is nothing but socialism for the rich anyway. If you are happy to be their indentured servant, then that's perfectly fine. You can continue living as a serf and the rest of us will progress to something greater, where humans actually have value and do not exist to serve a fictitious corporate entity.

You should read my thread The Evils of Capitalism for a more comprehensive overview of why this system has become obsolete and how cut throat capitalism is just a detriment to the human species.

Thinking we can just automate all work away and give everybody the same resources and that everyone will just get together and sing kumbaya all day is an incredibly naive, childish view.

And equating everything you like personally as some objective moral standard isn't? You advocate for a life of serfdom and an idealistic traditionalist Eutopia where all your personal preferences and ideals are enforced by the state onto everyone else, because you're a narrow-minded ideologue.

I advocate for a new society which transcends all the redundancy of this current system and a society which puts the welfare and happiness of everyone as the priority over corporate expansion into nothing and a toxic individualistic ethos which promotes getting ahead in the immoral rat race. My vision for the future is one on which people are freed from monotonous tasks and all pointless innovation like electric coffee stirrers and shit like that is discontinued. I advocate for a simpler life without all the materialistic bullshit of this society. I despise this society and I see people who support it's continued imposition onto everyone else as complete degenerates.

I will make a thread later about what this kind of society will entail and how it would function. I invite @Lucas88 to add some input on this as well, as this is something we have talked about several times. Then there will be no confusing our vision as some renewal of communism.

To tie the conversation back in line with the topic of the thread at hand, as I stated already capitalism, once useful and necessary for our technological growth, is now a redundant ideology and has become the master over the humans it was created to serve. This is unacceptable and objectively immoral! This is why people who advocate its continuation and ignore the damage it massively causes on a societal and environmental level are ignorant degenerates.

[Outcast9428]

Because you can’t just automate all labor away. I’m sure you’ve had the frustrating experience of calling a bank or some other corporate office where they wanted you to get your issue with whatever solved by a robot. It doesn’t work, and you are practically yelling at the phone “let me talk to a human!”

But we have the technology now to automate most of the menial jobs that are totally soul destroying. Robots can do these menial tasks repeatedly without need of a wage or any breaks, the only reason it won't work at the minute is because of capitalism itself. In a capitalist society the automation of labour means that lots of people just end up on welfare and are unable to provide for themselves. There is a hotel in Japan run mostly by robots. There are even machines which can help with surgical procedures.

Automate all the shit and eliminate pointless production of shit that nobody needs. Free more people to learn vocational skills and take the strain off important things like the NHS. In my envisioned society there would be no corporate offices and no need to speak with automated answering machines.

Sharing resources equally sounds like communism. Communism was a complete disaster and I’m not willing to give it any benefit of the doubt that “this time it will work.” When it has already been a horrific failure over and over again.

When did I advocate for communism? I am talking about a brand new system which transcends capitalism and its redundancy. This is something people should be thinking about. Capitalism is unsustainable, but we wanna keep flogging this dead horse to keep a very small minority living their lives of luxury at our expense.

Our work day may technically be 40+ hours a week but in practice it isn’t because people spend a lot of time at work not actually doing work. This isn’t just my workplace I’ve read a study that says the average employee only effective works 5 hours a day because they spend the other three hours or so talking to co-workers or playing with their phone. I make most of my posts here when I’m at work because I have nothing to do. My work involves me responding to issues when they pop up and sometimes nothing happens for a solid hour or so and even then I might be able to solve it in like two minutes.

Which study was that, then? So many jobs are different that it would be impossible to pinpoint exactly how many hours people work. Besides, what does it matter what you are doing? The point is that most people don't want to be there at all, regardless of whether they are actually producing crap or twiddling their thumbs. Most times people get told to "look busy". Like pretending to work if there is no work makes any sense at all lol

Personally I would prefer it if we weren’t physically at work as long but more productive while we were there. At my job that would simply be impossible.

Work is just the reality of life on Earth. We can try to reduce it but eliminating it from your life is impossible. If you want to never work again then try to get into heaven. But it’s not going to happen on Earth because letting people treat work like it’s optional will result in society falling apart. We’re already getting a taste of that with the number of people nowadays who are treating work like it’s optional and you can feel it. Things do not run as effectively as they did before the pandemic. Things that broke down around the house that you used to be able to hire somebody to come out tomorrow to fix you now have to wait a month or two for. I had to replace my drivers license because I fell victim to a scam where somebody was trying to steal my identity and they required me to schedule an appointment and that appointment wasn’t for two months. So I had to wait two months while the person could potentially be stealing my identity because the department of motor vehicles office didn’t have enough workers.

How does working for a company and earning fiat currency have any basis in reality? That sounds like such an NPC thing to say

It would result in the collapse of capitalist society, yes! That's the point. Capitalism is unsustainable anyway and besides which the reality is that our society is nothing but socialism for the rich anyway. If you are happy to be their indentured servant, then that's perfectly fine. You can continue living as a serf and the rest of us will progress to something greater, where humans actually have value and do not exist to serve a fictitious corporate entity.

You should read my thread The Evils of Capitalism for a more comprehensive overview of why this system has become obsolete and how cut throat capitalism is just a detriment to the human species.

Thinking we can just automate all work away and give everybody the same resources and that everyone will just get together and sing kumbaya all day is an incredibly naive, childish view.

And equating everything you like personally as some objective moral standard isn't? You advocate for a life of serfdom and an idealistic traditionalist Eutopia where all your personal preferences and ideals are enforced by the state onto everyone else, because you're a narrow-minded ideologue.

I advocate for a new society which transcends all the redundancy of this current system and a society which puts the welfare and happiness of everyone as the priority over corporate expansion into nothing and a toxic individualistic ethos which promotes getting ahead in the immoral rat race. My vision for the future is one on which people are freed from monotonous tasks and all pointless innovation like electric coffee stirrers and shit like that is discontinued. I advocate for a simpler life without all the materialistic bullshit of this society. I despise this society and I see people who support it's continued imposition onto everyone else as complete degenerates.

I will make a thread later about what this kind of society will entail and how it would function. I invite @Lucas88 to add some input on this as well, as this is something we have talked about several times. Then there will be no confusing our vision as some renewal of communism.

To tie the conversation back in line with the topic of the thread at hand, as I stated already capitalism, once useful and necessary for our technological growth, is now a redundant ideology and has become the master over the humans it was created to serve. This is unacceptable and objectively immoral! This is why people who advocate its continuation and ignore the damage it massively causes on a societal and environmental level are ignorant degenerates.

A lot of people, including myself, prefer those menial jobs. Because I prefer work where I can go on auto-pilot and stay inside my head rather then work that is too stimulating and demands a lot of attention. At the end of the day, I will go for the job that will pay me six figures some day. But I prefer menial, repetitive work over highly stimulating work.

As for the study... Here it is... The average US employee wastes about 3 hours out of every 8 hour work day. Modern Americans effectively only work about 25 hours per week, not 40. I would imagine in Europe it is a pretty similar situation, except in Germany where they have 6 hour work days but expect people to be hyper-productive in those 6 hours.

https://www.zippia.com/advice/wasting-t ... tatistics/

I've heard it is really extreme in Japan. That people waste ungodly amounts of time in the office. You know how much I love Japan, but personally, I think the Germans have the right idea when it comes to this issue specifically.

You said you want to automate all work and then distribute our resources evenly amongst everyone. That is communism. If all the jobs are automated then nobody can justify being paid more money then other people have, therefore you have wealth equality, which is the primary objective of communism. You're just advocating for a more technocratic version of communism.

The difference between what I'm advocating for and what you're advocating for is that my vision is actually a successful blueprint in history to follow. My vision is how many societies were run for centuries and it is a model of society that has been proven to work. At most I am making really minor tweaks, but pretty much everything I am advocating for, including all the specific laws I have mentioned, were actual laws that used to exist in the past. The only thing I advocate for that is new, is the marriage loans, but that has been tested and proven to work in Hungary. Basically, everything I am advocating for has been proven to work.

The system you are advocating for has been a horrifying disaster every time it was implemented. Technological advancement is not going to change the fact that communism is completely contrary to human nature. Who is in going to be in charge of distributing these resources? How are you going to prevent the leaders of such a society from claiming to have more of a right to the resources then the other people have? Are you just going to kill anyone who tries to have more resources then the other people have? What if he promises to give more resources to loyal soldiers in exchange for killing the rebellious proletariat? Do you think people will not take him up on that offer simply out of the goodness of their heart? The system you are advocating for will not work. It will erupt into civil war within a decade.

You are speaking exactly like the old Marxists did... Saying that Capitalism was on its dying breathe and that it was bound to fail because it was a contradictory system. Yet, here we are, one century later, and Capitalism is stronger then ever. The workers' revolution never happened because ultimately, Capitalism is actually pretty fair and has done a wonderful job of eliminating poverty. In most developed countries now, only 5%-10% of the population lives in poverty. Under Communist regimes, on the other hand, 90% of the population lived in poverty. And that's misleading still because the poverty people experienced under Communism was the kind of poverty that will kill you because you can't eat. The kind of poverty that modern Americans and Europeans experience on the other hand, is living in houses that aren't as nice as other people's and having less money they can use for fun. Nobody is starving to death though and even the poorest Americans live in air conditioned, as well as heated homes with multiple rooms, clean drinking water, and sanitation. Nearly all of the poor people here have smartphones and internet access. I mean, yes, poverty still exists but its a joke compared to what it used to be and it looks like downright luxury compared to what poor people experience under communism.

Even what we call poverty today will probably be eliminated someday. Eventually, everyone is going to be able to live in a pretty comfortable house or apartment. But that won't happen if people fall, once again, for the disastrous scam that is communism.

Now keep in mind, I actually dislike pure libertarian economics. I feel like they refuse to even consider some redistribution efforts or government programs that are simply common sense like minimum wage increases. If you have inflation then you must increase the minimum wage, and if you don't have any minimum wage laws then that is going to be ruthlessly exploited. I also think there should be a maximum number of working hours. Companies should not be allowed to make people work an obscene amount of hours. I also think the lack of government regulations has allowed corporations to dangerously poison both the environment as well as our bodies so they should be subject to a much stricter inspection process that eliminates toxic materials from our food and other items. I also believe we should force corporations that have been responsible for poisoning our environment to clean up their mess. I also strongly favor the marriage loans idea, which is not really libertarian.

I consider myself to be economically centrist, but socially far right.

[Tsar]

I spoke to Russian girls online who said communism is why there's no effectively no homeless in Russia because everyone had an apartment because of Communism. People were guaranteed housing which is a human right, and shouldn't be considered a market item.

A system with both elements of communism and elements of capitalism.

Housing is a human right much like food, water, healthcare, and utilities. Human rights should be given to people at no cost.

Extreme wealth inequality, unlimited amounts of property ownership, and unlimited amounts of net worth are not acceptable for an economic system.

The system should be designed to have a proportional wage system. Lowest level to highest level. The government should pay anyone who can't get work or create a job specifically for them.

No more multinationals. Certain industries should be completely nationalized and non-profit. The government should be the only multinational by having state-owned business.

Energy, utilities, raw materials, pharmaceuticals, insurance (for individuals), health insurance, medicine, and healthcare should all be nonprofit and state-owned or state-controlled.

Factory farms should become illegal. Only small to large privately owned farming, and very-large scale government farms.

It should be illegal for investors and businesses to own residential property above a set limit.

Everyone in life should be given a starter flat, annual sets of plain clothes, and coupons to redeem at a government shop for food. Just like starting in a video game. Then, everyone can use a fair version of capitalism to improve their lives.

Anyone who justifies the wealth of the super rich as normal or the system that allowed the creation of multinationals and billionaires doesn't care about creating a fair system.

Capitalism doesn't exist. It hasn't since nations abandoned the agrarianism concept of common land and the Industrial Revolution destroyed artisans, craftsman, and small businesses. What America and the world has is a system of feudalism and debt slavery.

The best economic system with a focus on sustainability wouldn't allow people to go into debt because debt is imaginary.

Feudalism, corporatism, and American capitalism will never eliminate poverty. It will only increase poverty and suffering.

Capitalism isn't stronger than ever. It's become more entrenched as an ideology but most people would favor a replacement system.

Anyone that thinks about economics with an ideological leaning will never create a better system for common prosperity.

@Pixel--Dude @Lucas88 @Outcast9428

[Tsar]

Capitalism only works without debt, with a real currency, with unlimited land to expand into, unlimited resources to exploit, jobs for everyone or the ability to easily create self-employment, and with only small and medium businesses. Capitalism is a flawed system and it becomes a terrible system if scaled upwards to large businesses and multinational corporations, and with fiat money, and all the land and property are now owned. Capitalism is just as broken and corrupt as the Marxism that people talk about.

[Outcast9428]

I spoke to Russian girls online who said communism is why there's no effectively no homeless in Russia because everyone had an apartment because of Communism. People were guaranteed housing which is a human right, and shouldn't be considered a market item.

A system with both elements of communism and elements of capitalism.

Housing is a human right much like food, water, healthcare, and utilities. Human rights should be given to people at no cost.

Extreme wealth inequality, unlimited amounts of property ownership, and unlimited amounts of net worth are not acceptable for an economic system.

The system should be designed to have a proportional wage system. Lowest level to highest level. The government should pay anyone who can't get work or create a job specifically for them.

No more multinationals. Certain industries should be completely nationalized and non-profit. The government should be the only multinational by having state-owned business.

Energy, utilities, raw materials, pharmaceuticals, insurance (for individuals), health insurance, medicine, and healthcare should all be nonprofit and state-owned or state-controlled.

Factory farms should become illegal. Only small to large privately owned farming, and very-large scale government farms.

It should be illegal for investors and businesses to own residential property above a set limit.

Everyone in life should be given a starter flat, annual sets of plain clothes, and coupons to redeem at a government shop for food. Just like starting in a video game. Then, everyone can use a fair version of capitalism to improve their lives.

Anyone who justifies the wealth of the super rich as normal or the system that allowed the creation of multinationals and billionaires doesn't care about creating a fair system.

Capitalism doesn't exist. It hasn't since nations abandoned the agrarianism concept of common land and the Industrial Revolution destroyed artisans, craftsman, and small businesses. What America and the world has is a system of feudalism and debt slavery.

The best economic system with a focus on sustainability wouldn't allow people to go into debt because debt is imaginary.

Feudalism, corporatism, and American capitalism will never eliminate poverty. It will only increase poverty and suffering.

Capitalism isn't stronger than ever. It's become more entrenched as an ideology but most people would favor a replacement system.

Anyone that thinks about economics with an ideological leaning will never create a better system for common prosperity.

@Pixel--Dude @Lucas88 @Outcast9428

You have been living in Eastern Europe for the past year, so there's no way you haven't seen the Soviet block apartments. They are absolutely hideous.

People who are homeless in America are homeless because they either have really serious mental health problems, or because they are addicted to drugs. They would not be homeless if the left had not pushed for deinstitutionalization back in the 60s. America has public housing projects as well, and if you make no money, you can stay there for free, but they are terrible places to live.

At least in America, you are not forced to live in those places, you can better your circumstances. In a communist system, virtually everyone lives in one of those hideous, soul crushing block apartments because the system demands wealth equality and you cannot better your own circumstances.

Housing, food, utilities, and healthcare all require labor to produce. Not just some, but a lot of labor. You can't just give these things to people for no cost because then the people who provided them will receive no compensation for their labor. You are turning them into slaves.

Virtually everyone in capitalistic societies has those things anyway though, including the poor. The percentage of Americans who are homeless is only 0.06%, a total of about 600,000 people. Its very realistically possible to put them all in the appropriate institutions designed for them. Virtually everything you just described is guaranteed under capitalism... Its just a more complex method of organizing it. People are not angry because they don't have these things... They are angry because they have lower quality versions of these things. But the only alternative to that is to force everyone to accept low quality "necessities."

[Tsar]

I spoke to Russian girls online who said communism is why there's no effectively no homeless in Russia because everyone had an apartment because of Communism. People were guaranteed housing which is a human right, and shouldn't be considered a market item.

A system with both elements of communism and elements of capitalism.

Housing is a human right much like food, water, healthcare, and utilities. Human rights should be given to people at no cost.

Extreme wealth inequality, unlimited amounts of property ownership, and unlimited amounts of net worth are not acceptable for an economic system.

The system should be designed to have a proportional wage system. Lowest level to highest level. The government should pay anyone who can't get work or create a job specifically for them.

No more multinationals. Certain industries should be completely nationalized and non-profit. The government should be the only multinational by having state-owned business.

Energy, utilities, raw materials, pharmaceuticals, insurance (for individuals), health insurance, medicine, and healthcare should all be nonprofit and state-owned or state-controlled.

Factory farms should become illegal. Only small to large privately owned farming, and very-large scale government farms.

It should be illegal for investors and businesses to own residential property above a set limit.

Everyone in life should be given a starter flat, annual sets of plain clothes, and coupons to redeem at a government shop for food. Just like starting in a video game. Then, everyone can use a fair version of capitalism to improve their lives.

Anyone who justifies the wealth of the super rich as normal or the system that allowed the creation of multinationals and billionaires doesn't care about creating a fair system.

Capitalism doesn't exist. It hasn't since nations abandoned the agrarianism concept of common land and the Industrial Revolution destroyed artisans, craftsman, and small businesses. What America and the world has is a system of feudalism and debt slavery.

The best economic system with a focus on sustainability wouldn't allow people to go into debt because debt is imaginary.

Feudalism, corporatism, and American capitalism will never eliminate poverty. It will only increase poverty and suffering.

Capitalism isn't stronger than ever. It's become more entrenched as an ideology but most people would favor a replacement system.

Anyone that thinks about economics with an ideological leaning will never create a better system for common prosperity.

@Pixel--Dude @Lucas88 @Outcast9428

You have been living in Eastern Europe for the past year, so there's no way you haven't seen the Soviet block apartments. They are absolutely hideous.

People who are homeless in America are homeless because they either have really serious mental health problems, or because they are addicted to drugs. They would not be homeless if the left had not pushed for deinstitutionalization back in the 60s. America has public housing projects as well, and if you make no money, you can stay there for free, but they are terrible places to live.

At least in America, you are not forced to live in those places, you can better your circumstances. In a communist system, virtually everyone lives in one of those hideous, soul crushing block apartments because the system demands wealth equality and you cannot better your own circumstances.

Housing, food, utilities, and healthcare all require labor to produce. Not just some, but a lot of labor. You can't just give these things to people for no cost because then the people who provided them will receive no compensation for their labor. You are turning them into slaves.

Virtually everyone in capitalistic societies has those things anyway though, including the poor. The percentage of Americans who are homeless is only 0.06%, a total of about 600,000 people. Its very realistically possible to put them all in the appropriate institutions designed for them. Virtually everything you just described is guaranteed under capitalism... Its just a more complex method of organizing it. People are not angry because they don't have these things... They are angry because they have lower quality versions of these things. But the only alternative to that is to force everyone to accept low quality "necessities."

I have seen them and the communist style apartments have their merits. They could look nicer, but large apartment blocks can accomplish:
1. Land conservation
2. Affordable housing
3. More space in cities
4. Act as starter houses

If people want to upgrade to a luxury apartment or a house that's more attractive, then that's where capitalist style economics should be involved.

I don't think you've seen documentaries about homelessness or heard the stories. It's a myth that most homeless are on drugs or have mental problems. Most poverty and homelessness is a failure of the system which includes capitalism.

People can be compensated but certain industries cannot have private ownership. There's no reason not to have government farms employing people. The American idea of no state-ownership and private markets only is one reason why life in America declines every generation.

Raw materials, water, land, and other parts of nature should have collective ownership. Why should everyone have to pay wealthy landowners who engage in profiteering because of they control all the land and resources? That's an unfair system and American or Anglo-Zionist capitalism doesn't want to address that.

Not everything should or can be owned. If someone owns a well or lake with freshwater, and then I decide that I need freshwater, and I won't be paying $5 or $10 for a bottle, so I bring a canteen to a lake, and fill it at the source, would I be stealing water? That's the joke of capitalism. Owning things that they didn't produce just because they have land rights that allow unlimited profiteering.

That's the essence of capitalist system. If you can't afford to live then you die.

If someone owns a reasonable amount of land or produces crops or owns a forest them that's capitalism. But profiteers owning the natural gas, oil, water, factory farms and corporations owning forests and lakes and land is unacceptable. That's feudalism, not capitalism. It can't be shrugged off as simply capitalism.

People can be given a standard ration of utilities, food, and water at no cost. Government farms can give people basic food with coupons or compensate the private farmers, and then people can buy things not included in the rations.

Much like a video game. A video game is very close to the ideal economic system.

People should be given basic things for free like communism them buy better things with capitalism.

Consumerism is also another problem and toxic for nature. Consumerism encourages mismanagement of finite resources. Consumerism also emphasizes quantity over quality. The quality of most products has declined in the US and elsewhere since the 1970s or 1980s. People should be encouraged to save for good quality or high quality goods that last 20-100 years.

Capitalism has the most conflicts of interest. That's why agrarianism and national socialism are better for humanity. It's also why communism has less conflicts of interest.

Russia's defense industry is state-owned. Russia also has state-ownership of many resources. That's why people in some parts of Russia pay nothing or very little for gasoline and low electric bills.

Private corporations control the United States defense industry and military industrial complex. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and hospitals can set whatever prices they want to engage in profiteering. If people look at it, the quality of healthcare in the US isn't anywhere near the best but it's the most expensive in the world. That's not a sign of capitalism which claims everything should be priced at what the free market can sustain and that businesses will try to produce the best quality. Capitalism is a conflict of interest because there's planned obsolescence and there's no genuine desire to create technologies for unlimited energy, real cures to disease, or even invent new disruptive technologies. How can capitalism solve problems if solving the problem would end the industry by removing the ability to profiteer? That's the flawed system.

Nikola Tesla was shutdown because he was engaging in genuine science and wanted to create technologies without any focus on profiteering. The American financiers didn't like that because it could disruptive his profiteering if he was successful.

American capitalism and modern capitalism (neo-feudalism) are not making the world or people's lives better or happier.

0 should be the minimum amount of money and net worth that a person can have.

Why should profiteers be allowed to earn unlimited amounts of money at the expense of everyone else? That's not a sign of a functional or fair system.

[Tsar]

This example of communist style housing is the best for affordable starter housing and to manage land in cities:


This is what capitalism should allow people to upgrade to if they work for it but without any debt or mortgages:






But people and workers cannot be made to suffer because industrialists and profiteers want to live in luxury mansions like this:


It should honestly cost a person almost all their savings to get a property like this:


10% or less of the population cannot steal from the other 90%.

[Outcast9428]

I don't even know where to begin with a lot of this...

@Tsar and @Pixel--Dude @Lucas88 Your ideologies don't make any sense. None of your ideas naturally flow into one another. I don't understand why you guys seem to think that social/political systems are like some sort of grocery store that you can freely choose whatever position you feel like having with no regard for what your position on other topics is. There's no consistency with you three. And I don't understand why it doesn't bother you to have such insanely inconsistent ideologies.

Tsar, you claim to be an ultra-traditionalist and yet, here you are shilling for Communism and the Soviet Union? Communism is the complete antithesis of traditionalism, there is no compatibility there whatsoever. The entire objective of Communism was to destroy traditionalism.

Pixel Dude and Lucas88, I don't even understand why you two dislike the Jews so much to be honest. They seem to be working towards getting everything you want. The great reset is basically what you are talking about, a technocratic kind of communism where people don't own anything, there will probably be a lot of automation, and resources will be evenly distributed. The Jews also pushed for sexual liberalism, they are anti-Christian, and you guys are effectively feminists since you support women working, which the Jews also support. Do you just dislike them because they happen to be the group that's in power? I dislike the Jews because they are trying to destroy all traditionally conservative, Christian values. But I really don't understand why y'all do, or why you identify with the right at all when your positions on everything are pretty consistently left-leaning.

All of you were first mentioning wanting to be like Ancient Rome again, and then Pixel Dude starts talking about wanting this technocratic brand of communism while Tsar just supports plain communism. How does it not occur to you that these are completely different societies? Communism has nothing in common with Ancient Rome or the way that Ancient Rome was run? Then Tsar mentions nationalism socialism as if they're the same thing when national socialists and communists absolutely hate each other and the biggest thing that motivated people to join the German army was to stop Communism. Tsar talks about the merits of communism but he also wants to legalize slavery, which is completely impossible in a communist system because nobody in his system will have enough money to organize and run a slave trade.

Having inconsistent ideologies does not make you some innovative independent thinker. Just because nobody else believes in it doesn't make it an intelligent ideology/system that will change the world. The reason why nobody else believes in them is because the stark inconsistencies and the complete lack of a cohesive worldview required to buy into such a vision is patently obvious to everyone else.

An ideological web needs to have ideas that actually flow into one another, otherwise it is merely the ramblings of someone who has no idea what the real world impact of actually implementing his ideas would be or how difficult it would be for some of his ideas to ever be implemented because he wants other ideas that are a complete contradiction to what he claims to want.

[Tsar]

I don't believe that economics should be ideologically driven. Also, wanting common prosperity and equitable division of resources isn't a hardship.

What's wrong with preventing people from going into debt?

Preventing the richest from going over 20 times the net worth from people?

Sure, if people want capitalism and profiteering, let them accumulate wealth, but then put into place spending caps. If people can't spend their money on excesses, then it also accomplishes lower inequality.

Economic principles can be used to like elements. Combining different elements can create a strong alloy.

American style capitalism or feudalism won't help people. It brings people down into generational poverty. Europeans and Russians have more real income and real net worth, adjusting for purchasing power parity, than Americans.

The only country in all industrialized nations that has solved homelessness was Finland.

No one becomes a billionaire without being born into a rich family or without backing of the Jewish interests.

My economic ideology is fairness and to create a permanently stable system with economic prosperity, common prosperity, no obscene wealth inequality, and also to prevent all forms of feudalism.

Having too many people own large acres of property covered in grass, with lawns, and use water to maintain the lawns is a waste. It's best to have people who own countryside homes keep gardens, plant fruit trees, and keep the wooded areas for wildlife.

I favor agrarianism where most land was common owned so sheep herders and cattle ranchers and other people could take their animals out to graze.

Why should people need permission from a landowner to walk on a hillside just because they had money to buy all that land and then anyone walking on it could be considered trespassing? That's capitalism.

Also, National Socialism was a counter to Communism. Hitler gave people cars, built all the highways as public goods, and prevented usury. He favored the environment. Communists gave people apartments. Both National Socialists and Communists wanted a fairer system for the people. But the main reason the National Socialists hated communism wasn't because they were opposed to the economic ideologies. They were opposed to the Jewish control, the destruction of culture, and the destruction of traditions.

American elites use Socialism and Communism as empty and hollow scare tactics to make foolish and unintelligent people accept their indentured debt servitude and serfdom status and prevent people from having better lives.

Why shouldn't people have a limit in place? What realistically gives one person the right to earn one billion units in fiat currency in a single year but another person couldn't even earn one million in a lifetime?

@Outcast9428 My economic policies would do more for traditionalism and to increase birth rates and small business economic activity.

The problem with feudalism is the tiny group of rich people will own everything and all business activity will go to the people who control the largest businesses.

Capitalism is a self-contradiction. It cannot solve real world problems if there's no money or profit in solving it. Creating half measure solutions or only minor improvements is profitable.

Imagine someone created a free energy technology. Unlimited Green Energy with no pollution. It can power homes, cars, ships, trains, phones, and everything. But that technology would make oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, solar, and wind energy obsolete. Do you think those industries or governments would ever allow a technology like that to be developed then made available? It would disrupt or destroy the entire economic system because Capitalism is based on profiteering, not common prosperity.

An economic system that purely rewards profiteering is inhumane.

Profiteering is a Jewish value.

America is rigid in it's crony capitalism and feudalism and corporatism and socialism for the rich.

The Top 20%, Top 10%, Top 1%, and Top 0.1% in the US live better lives than everyone else. This is a Second Gilded Age in the US because people have accepted the obscene and unjustifiable socioeconomic inequality.

A person cannot support the existence of obscene wealth inequality and the power of mega corporations, but then at the same time be against Jewish dominance. That's what I have determined. That's the disconnect.

I find worthwhile elements in every economic system because I am not an economic ideologue.

I favor traditionalism for social and moral policies, but I have no economic label because I want a new and better economic system.

[MarcosZeitola]

I don't believe that economics should be ideologically driven. Also, wanting common prosperity and equitable division of resources isn't a hardship.

What's wrong with preventing people from going into debt?

Preventing the richest from going over 20 times the net worth from people?

Sure, if people want capitalism and profiteering, let them accumulate wealth, but then put into place spending caps. If people can't spend their money on excesses, then it also accomplishes lower inequality.

Economic principles can be used to like elements. Combining different elements can create a strong alloy.

American style capitalism or feudalism won't help people. It brings people down into generational poverty. Europeans and Russians have more real income and real net worth, adjusting for purchasing power parity, than Americans.

The only country in all industrialized nations that has solved homelessness was Finland.

No one becomes a billionaire without being born into a rich family or without backing of the Jewish interests.

My economic ideology is fairness and to create a permanently stable system with economic prosperity, common prosperity, no obscene wealth inequality, and also to prevent all forms of feudalism.

Having too many people own large acres of property covered in grass, with lawns, and use water to maintain the lawns is a waste. It's best to have people who own countryside homes keep gardens, plant fruit trees, and keep the wooded areas for wildlife.

I favor agrarianism where most land was common owned so sheep herders and cattle ranchers and other people could take their animals out to graze.

Why should people need permission from a landowner to walk on a hillside just because they had money to buy all that land and then anyone walking on it could be considered trespassing? That's capitalism.

Also, National Socialism was a counter to Communism. Hitler gave people cars, built all the highways as public goods, and prevented usury. He favored the environment. Communists gave people apartments. Both National Socialists and Communists wanted a fairer system for the people. But the main reason the National Socialists hated communism wasn't because they were opposed to the economic ideologies. They were opposed to the Jewish control, the destruction of culture, and the destruction of traditions.

American elites use Socialism and Communism as empty and hollow scare tactics to make foolish and unintelligent people accept their indentured debt servitude and serfdom status and prevent people from having better lives.

Why shouldn't people have a limit in place? What realistically gives one person the right to earn one billion units in fiat currency in a single year but another person couldn't even earn one million in a lifetime?

@Outcast9428 My economic policies would do more for traditionalism and to increase birth rates and small business economic activity.

The problem with feudalism is the tiny group of rich people will own everything and all business activity will go to the people who control the largest businesses.

Capitalism is a self-contradiction. It cannot solve real world problems if there's no money or profit in solving it. Creating half measure solutions or only minor improvements is profitable.

Imagine someone created a free energy technology. Unlimited Green Energy with no pollution. It can power homes, cars, ships, trains, phones, and everything. But that technology would make oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, solar, and wind energy obsolete. Do you think those industries or governments would ever allow a technology like that to be developed then made available? It would disrupt or destroy the entire economic system because Capitalism is based on profiteering, not common prosperity.

An economic system that purely rewards profiteering is inhumane.

Profiteering is a Jewish value.

America is rigid in it's crony capitalism and feudalism and corporatism and socialism for the rich.

The Top 20%, Top 10%, Top 1%, and Top 0.1% in the US live better lives than everyone else. This is a Second Gilded Age in the US because people have accepted the obscene and unjustifiable socioeconomic inequality.

A person cannot support the existence of obscene wealth inequality and the power of mega corporations, but then at the same time be against Jewish dominance. That's what I have determined. That's the disconnect.

I find worthwhile elements in every economic system because I am not an economic ideologue.

I favor traditionalism for social and moral policies, but I have no economic label because I want a new and better economic system.

I am fine with millionaires and hope to one day be one but there is no sensible reason for billionaires to even exist. Such an insane degree of wealth is simply obscene.

[Tsar]

The only people who should live in a palace are virtuous absolute monarchs and popular despots, and possibly an aristocracy who are also virtuous. They must keep the support and win the hearts of the people. Much like Aristotle mentions about who should have power.

Commoners cannot live equal to or better than nobility. Mega Corporations cannot earn more profit than entire nations. That's an injustice.

The fact that I want fairness, not extreme wealth inequality, makes me more of a National Socialist than a Communist.

Why did people overthrow absolute monarchs and popular dictators, only to get something much worse? Plutocrats, corrupt republics, puppet Presidents, and corporate oligarchs?

@Pixel--Dude @Lucas88 @Outcast9428 @MarcosZeitola

[Tsar]

I am fine with millionaires and hope to one day be one but there is no sensible reason for billionaires to even exist. Such an insane degree of wealth is simply obscene.

Yes, I have the same belief. Billionaires only exist because the monetary system and the financial system and the economic system are all terribly broken and flawed. The politicians who talk about solving inequality with taxes cannot ever solve socioeconomic inequality with taxes because taxes are part of the system and raise money for the government. There's no way to fix socioeconomic inequality with changing the entire system.

[Tsar]

Here's another thing in favor of fairness and traditionalism.

10,000 people are given farmland instead of 1 large corporation.

10,000 people can have a small house, keep a small herd or have many birds like hens or small animals like rabbits. They can grow a lot of fruit trees and crops for quality crops. Meet their own food needs and sell the food locally or elsewhere.

That's traditionalism and the common prosperity allowed birth rates to be high. People were self-sufficient.

That's agrarianism, genuine fair capitalism, and maybe somewhat National Socialism. Maybe it could have some overlap with Communism.

Modern American Capitalism doesn't support real economic policies of the people and it's not suited for true prosperity of all people.

I don't support Trickle Down Economics that don't work. I also don't support large or multinational businesses.

Traditional economics values individuals, artisans, artists, small business, family businesses, and medium businesses.

I would shutdown the very concept of stock markets and financial markets. End the very existence of corporations. Government owned businesses that sell domestically should return some profits to the people and charge more to international buyers.

Competition between government businesses and privately owned businesses is more capitalistic. There's no reason why a government shouldn't own businesses.

Business should be owned purely by it's individual owners or the government. Not owned by a group of financiers, profiteers, and shadowy owners shielded by lawyers and the protection of a corporate umbrella.

My economic ideology prevents Jews, Elites, and any group from or ever having the ability to control or dominant business, the government, or industry, at any time. My economic ideology is also designed for permanent stability and stable growth. To prevent all forms of economic manipulation.

That makes my economic ideology the most traditional.

Common prosperity is the foundation for a happy population that reproduces and can afford to have many children.

[Outcast9428]

@Tsar

It would not help traditionalism at all because with this economic system you are speaking of, you are giving people an excessive number of safety nets. You’re not encouraging them to try and become responsible individuals who can make a life for themselves and their family you are encouraging them to sit around and do the minimum amount of effort possible. If you give people all those basic necessities for free then many people will not work. And you can say the benefit to working is enjoying a higher standard of living but there’s plenty of people who will sit around in your government paid for block apartments and just do drugs and play video games all day.

You need a system that lights a little bit of a fire under people’s asses but doesn’t actually kill them if they fail. That’s what we have right now. Find me a news story of someone actually starving to death because they couldn’t afford to eat? Capitalism is not killing anybody in America. Poverty does not look like an Oliver Twist novel anymore. In fact we give the poor so much money in welfare benefits now that they live better then the lower middle class does despite usually having no jobs.

That’s why I like the marriage loans program Hungary is doing. Give the money to people who are getting married and have jobs. Give assistance to people who are actually trying, don’t give assistance to parasites who just want to do the bare minimum.

[Cornfed]

@Tsar

It would not help traditionalism at all because with this economic system you are speaking of, you are giving people an excessive number of safety nets. You’re not encouraging them to try you are encouraging them to sit around and do the minimum amount of effort possible. If you give people all those basic necessities for free then many people will not work. And you can say the benefit to working is enjoying a higher standard of living but there’s plenty of people who will sit around in your government paid for block apartments and just do drugs and play video games all day.

Is that a bad thing? Most people are useless or worse right now.