(untitled)

Let's have a .webm thread for criticism of capitalism and consumptionism. Also, what is soundtrack from my 1st webm and what movie is the second one?

Second one What movie is it?

posted on a phone/computer? how's it feel to be such a hypocrite?

>>1158 Not him but I'd argue that computers are not intrinsically a tool of capitalism or consumptionism, and that such devices can be used to subvert those ideologies(?) in many ways. Alternatively, it is hard to make a difference or spread an idea without access to such devices. Open access to internet-capable devices will be a big step forward towards destabilizing capitalism imo. hopefully

>>1155 You do realize that for all the shortcomings of capitalism, communism is infinitely worse? Read Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. Take an econ course. The end of capitalism is not what you want. It is not the coming of a utopia where everything is provided to you but the start of an age where you own nothing, have no privacy, and are a slave to the government. When you criticize capitalism you only criticize the way humans have traded for thousands of years. You can show me pictures of crowds at Black Friday and infographics about pollutants in the atmosphere all you want and it won't change anything. It is in human nature to exchange goods and services for other goods and services. If you are no longer free to trade with your neighbor, what are you free to do? In what world would you be happier without the freedom to choose what to do with your time and efforts? >>1161 ebin strawman bro

>>1162 you sound extremely mentally ill

>>1162 Couldn't have said it better myself. People who are all for communism seem like they have no idea how the real world works.

>>1164 Is that an ad hominem I hear?

>>1158 I get what you're saying and you wanna avoid meaningless virtue signaling, but at some point boycotting becomes so costly that "hypocrite" doesn't apply any more. Also this thread seems to be more about consumerism than capitalism itself. Just having an internet-connected device doesn't mean that you're a mindless marketing-followed consumerist, nor does it mean you've lost all right to criticize capitalism or the consequences thereof. >>1162 Literally no one here advocated communism. >When you criticize capitalism you only criticize the way humans have traded for thousands of years. The face of "capitalism" of today is very different from how it was over the course of history. We could get into an argument of definitions here, arguing about what "capitalism" is and is not, but that's pointless. It's clear that the issue is not with free trade or small businesses. The problem is that companies who manage to get a (near-)monopoly get a tremendous amount of political power and can basically act with impunity, and there's no good systems in place for preventing this. And with the economy being more global than ever, the problem can get bigger than ever.

>>1170 That picture is complete non sequitor. First image implies giving money to those that purposefully have evil greedy intentions whilst other 2 just simply "how can we fix things that we are using?". Manufacturers created seatbelts before it was necessary by law, giving them a hogher moral ground than Apple and society wanted to improve itself from get go, and it did in rather quick time. Giving money to greedy evil people == them continuing their plans to save costs by shipping them manufacturing elsewhere Giving money to good people == you get a good paying product with no slavery

I love how all lains get along until these threads arrive, then everyone realises that half of us are libertarian and the other half communitarian. >>1158 Yeah pretty much all computers are the result of a slave labour economy, induced by the very capitalism OP is (assumed to be) criticising. So anyone arguing for anything other than the status quo will have to confront this contradiction. But let's actually confront it? Surely, rather than just saying "oh how hypocritical" we should actually think a little bit about what it says, that this unethical thing is so ubiquitous no one can honestly claim they're untouched by it? >>1162 I'm guessing you're American, apologies if I'm wrong. I've noticed in that country more than anywhere this conviction: that modern social-economic relations can literally only be capitalist (status-quo) or communist (Stalinist). The way people organise themselves is extremely diverse through history, and will continue to change. Our global and local economic structures of this decade are nothing like those of the 1960s or the 1910s. Surely it's not unreasonable to at least hope that the economy of the 2060s is more just and equal? And upon collecting together some of those unjust and unequal parts of contemporary society, it often happens that they can be seen as facets of the corporatism/consumerism/neoliberalism that now uses the very broad name "capitalism". > Take an econ course. Not that it matters on the wired, but I do have a degree in it. It's impossible to describe how naive the entire discipline is. They consider themselves rigorous and scientific, though reality points to shaky axioms and poor predictive power. Consider the fact that the social sciences, which to the chagrin of economists includes them, do best when they cross-pollinate with adjacent disciplines (e.g. literature and linguistics). But economists are generally half-blind historians and pay hardly any attention to the deep researches of their neighbours in sociology, historiography, psychology, anthropology, etc. Thomas Sowell is actually a perfect example of this academic hubris. < apologies for the longpost, lains >

OP here Guys, this thread isn't about communism at all. I find myself somewhere between La Société du spectacle and libertarianism. This thread is about .webms that depicts hipocrisy and nonesense which can be found in our day to day activities (which are somehow fundamentals of western societies). >>1172 Thank you. This one is actually quite close to me as I will probably become a code monkey in next 3-4 years. There is not much I can do ;( >>1158 I totally agree. By the way, The Revolution will come from the east Asia. We will be doomed. There will be no mercy. What about sources I've been asking (especially this music from 1st .webm)

I'm 20 and I have all the complexity of poltical, social, and economic issues figured out. Listen to me, I know what I'm talking about.

>>1170 >The face of "capitalism" of today is very different from how it was over the course of history Crony capitalism =/= capitalism >We could get into an argument of definitions here, arguing about what "capitalism" is and is not, but that's pointless If you can't clearly describe your problem then you can't solve it. >It's clear that the issue is not with free trade or small businesses. The problem is that companies who manage to get a (near-)monopoly get a tremendous amount of political power and can basically act with impunity, and there's no good systems in place for preventing this AHEM CRONY* capitalism. >And with the economy being more global than ever, the problem can get bigger than ever. It will just push countries to create some "free-trade" blocks of economy based on political affiliation. Basically: > Multilateral Free Trade Areas > Customs unions > Common markets > Customs and monetary unions > Economic unions > Economic and monetary union (see EU, BRICS, EAC, GAFTA... just to name a few). This type of government and corporate connection is ultimately pushing for higher prices, monopoly and economy blocks that operate based on external global political affiliations which will ultimately lead to one world government. It seems to me that all you hippies either don't know a lot on this topic or are rash in making decisions on little information that you do know. If you REALLY wanted to fight against current state of capitalism then you would learn how it works and try to dissasemble it from inside out by putting a crowbar in the cogs. You aren't doing that however.

>>1176 > everyone who disagrees with me is just a hippie

>>1170 >Also this thread seems to be more about consumerism than capitalism itself. Yeah. I dislike that the two are so strongly connected. I'm indifferent towards capitalism. I could not care how people distribute material wealth (so long as it's reasonable ofc) but consumerism is awful. There is some connection between the two but they're not intrinsically linked. A world where a marketing department is a losing idea because people are jaded to advertisement seems a bit pie in the sky but I think people waking up to such things is important on a larger scale. >>1171 >Manufacturers created seatbelts before it was necessary by law Yep, though I doubt they'd do something like that these days (unless they felt it would be more profitable of course). It's weird to put it like this but I think communism indirectly fuarrrked us. I'm specifically talking about the cold war and the 80's. We positioned ourselves as being the capitalists as opposed to the communists, took it too far and lost sight of things like being a decent person and improving the world in favour of the bottom line. >>1172 >I love how all lains get along until these threads arrive, then everyone realises that half of us are libertarian and the other half communitarian. Yeah, it's nice to be honest. Means I'm not stuck in some narrow minded echo chamber ala reddit or twitter. Though often the arguments between the two strike me as two people stood in a burning house arguing about which fire extinguisher to use. Almost everyone agrees that the world is all sorts of fuarrrked and, more tentatively, that a large redistribution of wealth is needed. We just can't agree how to go about it. >Surely it's not unreasonable to at least hope that the economy of the 2060s is more just and equal? I think so. Our economy is pretty fuarrrked but just 100-200 years ago we'd have been barely more than slaves. A few hundred more and we might well have been literally slaves. We have been slowly trending upwards so we can at least hope it'll continue. I don't think anyone really knows what's coming though. >>1176 >If you can't clearly describe your problem then you can't solve it. He describes it in the same paragraph. "The problem is that companies..." He strongly implies that he just doesn't want to argue about if that counts as capitalism or crony-capitalism or whatever. I tend to agree. So long as we know what we're talking about who cares what we call it? >If you REALLY wanted to fight against current state of capitalism then you would learn how it works and try to dissasemble it from inside out by putting a crowbar in the cogs. You aren't doing that however. There's nothing to indicate that the guy you're replying to isn't doing just that. Hell, it seems you agree on just about everything. It's not capitalism as a whole but this specific implementation that's the problem and as the economy becomes more global the problem increases.