Anonymous #2 2w

that's who the bottom character is - Super(PAC)man

3

Anonymous #4 2w

When has it been attempted without being undermined by the single most influential power on the planet?

7

Anonymous the_median_voter 2w

So communism needs total global cooperation and zero opposition to function? That kinda proves the point.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

"oh you need the global police to stop violently attacking, sanctioning and tariffing you? wowwww so you need total global cooperation?" are you this dense irl or is it just a character you put on when you're attention seeking in anonymous forums?

7

Anonymous #3 2w

Opposition exists in every system. Capitalism survives it. Communism keeps failing and then blames it. That difference matters.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Sanctions don’t explain internal repression, shortages, or one-party states.

-2

Anonymous #3 2w

I think we can publicize more industries, like we have with police, firefighting, education, etc. For example I think the US government can publicize a lot of Farming. They already do “price floors” which are inherently against the free market- even if you don’t get it, you get bailed out. But it’s necessary to have well-paid farmers, if int’l supply chain ever goes out, USA is f*cked without local farms

1

Anonymous #2 2w

Cry more

0

Anonymous #2 2w

That’s a mixed economy argument, not communism. Public services + targeted subsidies ≠ abolishing markets or private ownership.

-1

Anonymous #4 2w

this is like a monopoly saying their competition just needs to compete harder. killing competition in the cradle isn't competition it's oppression your argument is weak and juvenile

1

Anonymous #4 2w

every time a "communist" nation makes superior products we tariff them to hell to ensure american consumers never experience superior production and give their money to superior producers

1

Anonymous #3 2w

You’re mixing up three different things: monopolies, trade policy, and communism. Antitrust exists within capitalism to prevent monopolies. Tariffs are a trade tool used by capitalist countries too. None of that equals worker ownership or abolishing private markets. You still haven’t explained how communism avoids centralization and coercion at scale.

0

Anonymous #3 2w

You’re arguing against capitalism’s flaws, not for communism’s viability.

-1

Anonymous #4 2w

i've mixed up nothing, and i'm not advocating for communism. i'm pointing out flaws in your thinking

5

Anonymous #3 2w

If you’re not advocating communism, then we’re not disagreeing. Pointing out capitalism’s flaws doesn’t make communism workable, that was the original claim.

0

Anonymous #4 2w

you're mixed up - you're saying tariffs exist in capitalist societies when that's what i just pointed out... they are a weapon often used to prevent superior competition. it's a clear sign that the system doesn't hold alone - capitalists need an incestuous, oppressive relationship with government to survive. and it's not just oppressive to other countries - it's oppressive to domestic consumers as well

3

Anonymous #4 2w

you've failed to demonstrate that antitrust is anything but lip service to create the illusion of free markets. several oligopolies exist and have for decades

3

Anonymous #3 2w

If state interference proves a system ‘can’t stand alone,’ then communism fails by definition, it requires total state control. You’re criticizing corruption and capture, not showing that markets are inherently unworkable.

-1

Anonymous #3 2w

Oligopolies existing doesn’t prove markets are fake — it proves power concentrates when enforcement fails. That problem doesn’t disappear under communism; it becomes permanent and centralized by design.

4

Anonymous #4 2w

🅱️Ased

3

Anonymous #4 2w

idgaf whether or not communism stands. what are you not understanding? you and me aren't having a communism vs capitalism convo. i am pointing out how capitalism is a doomed system. please for the love of god focus

3

Anonymous #4 2w

claiming something with confidence doesn't make it true my friend. you have failed to demonstrate proof of any of your claims. may as well be saying "my dad can beat up your dad"

5

Anonymous #3 2w

If capitalism is ‘doomed,’ that’s a predictive claim. So name the mechanism, timeline, and historical example where a large economy collapsed because of markets themselves rather than war, policy, or capture.

0

Anonymous #3 2w

I’ve explained mechanisms. You’ve asserted conclusions. If you think I’m wrong, point to a scalable alternative that avoids concentration of power — otherwise this is just rhetoric.

0

Anonymous #4 2w

you've repeatedly failed to defend against my critiques of capitalism - opting instead to go on the offensive repeatedly over something that was never being defended. now that you've accepted i'm not promoting communism you desperately need something to attack. i gain absolutely nothing from you acting like a hound dog with unsubstantiated claims. "but communism..." is not an argument in favor of capitalism. nothing you've said is of substance. just empty claims

2

Anonymous #3 2w

I’ve addressed your critiques directly: capture, tariffs, oligopolies, and enforcement failure. You keep asserting ‘capitalism is doomed’ without specifying a causal mechanism, timeframe, or counter-system that avoids the same power concentration. If you’re not arguing for an alternative, then this is just criticism without a conclusion — which isn’t an argument.

0

Anonymous #4 2w

What mechanism did you explain exactly? You mean tariffs?

1

Anonymous #6 2w

No. The mechanisms are regulatory capture, rent-seeking, barriers to entry, and weak antitrust enforcement. Tariffs are just one tool that emerges from capture. None of this shows markets are inherently doomed; it shows how power distorts outcomes when governance fails.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

what do you mean by "addressed" because all you did was make unsubstantiated claims and assertions. i pointed out how tariffs are actively used in capitalist systems to throttle "free markets" and superior competition and your response was that tariffs are used in capitalist societies too... you're acknowledging what i say and regurgitating basic definitions/claims but none of that counters what i said.. again, claiming something confidently doesn't make it true

3

Anonymous #3 2w

By ‘addressed,’ I mean I identified the causal chain you’re pointing to: political capture → rent-seeking → trade barriers (tariffs) → reduced competition. That explains how tariffs arise and why they distort markets. What it does not show is that markets are inherently unworkable—only that power distorts outcomes when governance fails. Unless you can show a system that avoids capture and concentration at scale, the ‘capitalism is doomed’ claim remains unsupported.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

Capture and oligopolistic control naturally erode enforcement. Capitalism naturally incentivizes capture and oligopoly. The logical conclusion of capitalism is the consolidation of wealth among a shrinking number of those willing to engage in monopolistic practices and capture to create barriers to entry. It's the fiscal responsibility of CEOs to ensure shareholder value rises. In a captured market ran by oligopolies the only option is to engage in similar practices

1

Anonymous #4 2w

It's not an "if" it's a "when" and the answer is "now". I know this is falling on deaf ears because you have a clear agenda but I hope you actually spend some of your own time engaging with these critiques. It's worthwhile. You don't have to blindly defend everything about capitalism to support it

1

Anonymous #6 2w

You’re asserting inevitability without proof. Capitalism doesn’t require capture or oligopoly — it permits them when institutions fail. The claim that consolidation is the ‘logical conclusion’ ignores counter-examples where competition persisted for decades under the same profit incentives. Incentives explain behavior, not destiny. Without demonstrating inevitability across time and cases, this is a narrative, not a law.

1

Anonymous #6 2w

If it’s ‘now,’ then show it. Point to a specific outcome that can’t be explained by policy choices, enforcement failure, or political capture without assuming your conclusion. Declaring inevitability isn’t evidence — it’s just assertion. I’m not defending capitalism as perfect; I’m rejecting the claim that its collapse is proven.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

"unless you can show a system that avoids capture and concentration at scale, the 'capitalism is doomed' claim remains unsupported" this is nonsensical. whether or not capitalism is doomed would be the case regardless of other systems; though i will clarify that by doomed i mean doomed to follow through to, as #6 put it, the logical conclusion of capitalism; oligopoly, consolidation, capture, anti-competitive practices, etc.

3

Anonymous #4 2w

nobody said collapse

5

Anonymous #3 2w

Then we agree on the outcome but not the inference. Oligopoly, consolidation, and capture are failure modes, not proof of inevitability. You’re asserting they’re the logical conclusion without demonstrating necessity across cases or time. Calling that ‘doomed’ doesn’t add rigor — it just renames the claim.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Fair — but whether you call it ‘collapse’ or ‘consolidation,’ the claim is still inevitability. And that’s what hasn’t been demonstrated. Changing the label doesn’t change the burden of proof.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

i believe capitalism will thrive the more it progresses along the doom spectrum, not collapse

4

Anonymous #3 2w

Then your claim isn’t that capitalism is doomed — it’s that it degrades without collapsing. That’s a critique of outcomes, not proof of inevitability or failure as a system. We’re talking past each other.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

i guess we'll just have to wait and see 🤷

5

Anonymous #3 2w

Fair enough — predictions get settled by evidence over time.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

i can't prove the future and that's not my goal. i'm making educated guesses based on real-world evidence. mergers and acquisitions continue to increase in value (and i'm pretty sure frequency), wealth disparity continues climbing, economic mobility continues decreasing, consolidation of wealth continues increasing, and a shrinking share of people have any influence over it thanks to increasing $ in politics which had a turbo boost thanks to... you guessed it... businesses spending endless money

5

Anonymous #4 2w

i would rather you be correct; i would love to see capitalism create a world (or even country) where most thrive but i've seen absolutely no evidence of this. the US is not a country where the average person thrives and it's getting demonstrably worse

4

Anonymous #3 2w

That’s fair — and I don’t disagree with most of those trends. Where we differ is attribution. Rising consolidation, inequality, and political capture are real, but they aren’t unique to markets or proof of capitalism’s inevitability toward failure; they’re failures of institutions and policy choices layered on top of markets. If the claim is simply ‘the U.S. isn’t delivering broad prosperity right now,’ I agree. If the claim is ‘markets necessarily lead here,’ that still hasn’t been shown.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

The last 50 years have been characterized by a loosening of tariffs, capitalism has survived.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

It’s actually unclear if the market is getting more consolidated, it appears to be holding constant https://itif.org/publications/2025/12/08/still-insignificant-an-update-on-concentration-in-the-us-economy/

1

Anonymous #4 2w

They started making these predictions with Marx, every decade the end of capitalism is neigh and every decade the collapse never comes. It’s not like we “just don’t have enough data” Instead it’s the states inspired by their ideology that collapse (USSR) or transform into something else (modern China)

1

Anonymous canesfan 2w

When you starve I put you on a in-memoriam t-shirt

1