10
posted ago by Beardman ago by Beardman +10 / -0

Seriously what is it? how would you define it?

Comments (19)
sorted by:
8
shadows_of_the_mind 8 points ago +8 / -0

Voluntary transactions

6
Esoteric_Doomer 6 points ago +7 / -1

An economic system that appeared due to the industrial revolution in opposition to mercantilism.

5
defiant_liberty 5 points ago +5 / -0

Well, Marx defined it as an economic system characterized by private ownership over the means of production, for profit. Since then, there have been a lot more additions to the definition to make it seem more like a system where large corporations and conglomerates exploit resources and people. None of these definitions are perfect, but a system characterized by private property is good enough. Once you respect property rights, all the other things tend to follow.

5
Happy_Merchant 5 points ago +5 / -0

Its not feudalism or mercantilism it appeared

later but commies think capitalism is old AF lol

5
Elrond_Hubbard 5 points ago +5 / -0

The most common definition would be something like "an economic system free from government regulation."

I'm not sure why there's a bunch of novels in the comments, it's that simple.

4
YourOwnGreatGrandma 4 points ago +4 / -0

Me: Want to buy my banana? You: oh yeah. CAPITALISM

Me: want to buy my banana? You: sure. Someone else: autistic screeching NOT CAPITALISM

4
tiffany46 4 points ago +4 / -0

The foundation is that government enforces ownership. You own your own labor and ideas, exchange them for goods and services. If you purchase ownership of a business, then you part own that business. That's really all there is to it. Everything else either builds on that or is a perversion of it

4
GODwins76 4 points ago +4 / -0

the natural response to supply and demand, a law of economics (which translates into household management, or resource management, something you do whether you are conscious of it or not). Capitalism is supposed to be a free process where at least two parties can exchange for equitable advantages.

0
TallestSkil 0 points ago +8 / -8

“Capital... is an economic instrument which must serve the entire economy, and hence may not be an instrument for the advantage and privilege of the few who have had the good luck to get in first.” ~ Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera; Selected Writings; p. 147; 1931

There is no argument against capitalism because the term itself is almost completely meaningless. There is no definition for capitalism–no good one, anyway. Capitalism is a term given to a myriad of behaviors which accrue capital. This doesn’t have to be money, currency, or financial assets–with which jews are engrossed. It’s interesting that despite its central position in marxist thought, jews (liberals, as well) are allergic to “the means of production.” Farms, land, skilled labor, and factories are all anathema to jews and were abandoned in favor of services and “vocations,” which don’t produce material. Vocations can be used to rent-seek off the public dole without a tangible way to determine if those who hold said positions are producing anything of worth to society. Leftists–whatever stripe, racial or otherwise–love the idea that they cannot be measured by what they produce. They hence love service jobs and the media opposition to agriculture, manufacturing, resource extraction, and STEM fields.

White nationalism–for that matter, all traditional white sociopolitical behavior–is about accruing capital. Due to racial differences, what whites consider “capital” differs vastly from what jews consider capital. Since jews have come to define all academic terms in modern society, “capitalism” is only seen and taught through the jewish lens. To whites, children are useful, land is useful, mineral resources are useful, a state which ensures the survival of your family line is useful, a military to defend your nation’s interests is useful, accrued knowledge is useful, socially conservative institutions–which support adaptive behavior such as religion–are useful, laws which preference your people over others and make you strong at their expense are useful, and common interest in the population–which makes the nation cooperate even if there is no touchy-feely volk political system–are useful. All these things should be considered capital. At the end of the day, propagation and survival over all else is the point. The nation, as a governmental entity, exists for the protection of your individual family line–and those racially similar to it–so that you may engage with this good stock, producing generations of fit organisms who then reproduce again, indefinitely. The national government that supports your race and family is a vehicle for the perpetuation of your blood. That is what it is all about. That is why race really matters.

Not only are just a few races intelligent and capable of maintaining a civilization, but only your own race is good breeding stock for you (children of miscegenation, as we have learned, have poor health). Those who are naturally predisposed to adaptive behavior–white traditionalists–are outbreeding white liberals and jews. This is the reason for the latter’s need to import nonwhites. But why not also enforce a religion which enhances those adaptive behaviors? The same thing with society and politics–the weak are to be hated and shunned and the strong indoctrinated to make them still stronger. The near totality of liberal ideology is useless to survival or maladaptive. Their “ideals” are parasites which kill the host society, because liberalism isn’t interested in survival. It is, in fact, opposed to survival. It is a cult of slow suicide. Liberalism clamors for pleasure today and celebrates the destruction of tomorrow, while simultaneously claiming it holds the keys to a future “utopia.”

The real philosophical tenet of all traditional/conservative/rightist thought is “survival at all costs.” I spit in the face of my own happiness. I care nothing for “personal fulfillment.” These are the goals of the weak, the leftist, and the diseased. Fill your hearts with hate for anything that does not put your children and your survival over all else, and see things in that context. Once you do that, everything else is cast clearly in black and white–good for you or bad for you. Nothing else matters. Leftists, though they now openly call for communism, embrace the perversion of capitalism known as consumerism.

5
Pandas4Trump 5 points ago +6 / -1

"""Stormfaggot Spam Wall"""

3
White_Phosphorus 3 points ago +3 / -0

Ha he really reported your comments like I'm going to remove someone calling him a faggot

3
Pandas4Trump 3 points ago +3 / -0

The guy hasn't changed his handle since at least 2009. Most of his social interactions end with someone calling him a derivation of fag

3
ausglitsch 3 points ago +3 / -0

antisemitic

ancap

sir please have a couple of seats. we need to talk

-3
TallestSkil -3 points ago +2 / -5

What

3
Pandas4Trump 3 points ago +4 / -1

Found another board to jooooooooooooo spam I see. Kill yourself stormfaggot

2
Italians_Invented_2A 2 points ago +2 / -0

Another important thing to observe is that the NSDAP distinguished between the "industrial capital" and the "financial capital".

This distinction is fundamental. If you become a billionaire by owning a factory and producing stuff, that's a benefit for society. If you become a billionaire by lending money at interest or making financial speculations you're just ripping off society. There's a big difference between a billionaire like Trump, who got rich by building stuff, and Soros who got rich by bankrupting countries.

The fact that communists don't distinguish between the two suggests that they are controlled opposition.

-1
Z3F- -1 points ago +3 / -4

###Test

#Test

####test

##Test

3
Dereliction 3 points ago +3 / -0

Add a space after the #s. Not sure why it works that way now.

3
Z3F- 3 points ago +3 / -0

Awesome, thank you! I fixed the sidebar.