51% of Millenials reject capitalism. What now?

I'm 2 minutes in and he's repeated the same thing four times in a row

Is he literally going insane?

side effect of remaining an ancap for over 50 years

No, it’s the side affect of being denied your arguments.

...

Yep… Go on…
There you go… Keep it up…
Sweet Jesus, he's got it!
Goddamnit Steve. You were this fucking close.

youtube.com/watch?v=y2Aby3fpY8Y

youtube.com/watch?v=AQvxz6gg4HA

I'm patiently waiting for the day news breaks of his suicide or arrest after his wife and kids escape from a Josef Fritzl-style basement he's keeping them in.

...

He even gets a little bit of that JUST hair at the end there

Holla Forums firing squad: "Have you any last words, Mr. Molyneux?"

One Dollar Man: "Muh NAP!"

And where does that annoying fucking accent of his come from? It sounds very German, but I read he's got an Irish/British/Canadian background.

defoo.org/isabella-molyneux/

If Stefan's dad hadn't been too drunk to beat him to death as a child we would all be better off.

However they do not reject liberalism, which is why their movement is doomed. Without rejecting the concept of "natural rights", which were created explicitly to protect private property through a set of axioms that are greater than politics, they will never be able to end capitalism; capitalism will be able to subvert and adapt to their criticism.

Actually, these millennials are liberals that think that industry simply has the effect of hurting liberal values. They are the true Neo-Liberals. That's the cause of all this anxient areound the term. The progressive liberals of old did not changed their position but somehow their label has been changed. Someone is pulling a fast one, and they can tell. They are the liberals, the "irony left" are the Neo-liberals, and the socialistic, communistic, revolutionary left, is still forsaken by the Western liberal order.

ONE
NOTHING WRONG WITH ME

TWO
NOTHING WRONG WITH ME

THREE
NOTHING WRONG WITH ME

FOUR
NOTHING WRONG WITH ME

ONE
SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE

TWO
SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE

THREE
SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE

NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR

LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR

LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR

LET THE BODIES HIT THE……

FLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

10/10.

Fuck sake I laughed my arse off

top kek

19/17

...

I love it. The ones supposedly rejecting capitalism know just as little about what it really is as Molyneux, yet he and his idiot following are still deadly afraid of it.

>Video not 59 minutes and 58 seconds long
Is he getting lazy? Usually his videos are as long as an extended edition of a The Lord of The Rings movie. pic related.

That's the creepiest picture I've seen in CY+2.

Don't ever EVER trust anything written in the YouTube comment field

socialism is when the government does stuff like taxes or whatever
-karl marx

Is it just me or does he look old and worn? What's eating him?

take the Uygur-pill
(original on YT):
youtube.com/watch?v=BRM9PdDf3zA

Create cooperatives/employee owned companies.

Still reward innovation and hard work, all members of the company benefit from gains. I imagine it would result in people working hard as profit sharing would net better than minimum wage for companies that perform well.

Kultural Marx destroyed western civilization and now he's upset.

Is any of his videos positive? They are always negatvie and against something.

jesus christ

cancer

...

Not an argument

my sides top kek

Serious question for all the geniuses that think "workers" should control production..

What happens when 3D printers git gud enough so everyone has one and they print out things like cars and airplanes and computers?

Who gets to control AI? More authoritarian bullshit? Mob rule through facebook likes?

The way I imagine it, marxism or whatever is inherently incompatible with future technology and is just an excuse for cronyism, because at some point we have to establish who owns what and how can you say that someone doesnt own something they made themselves and control, especially if cryptography is used to determine who is the admin on a system? Therefore, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the universe is INHERENTLY capitalistic.

Shhhhh, only idealism now. I don't have to explain shit, fuck empiricism.

you just described communism you dumbfuck. Even if this is a troll I have heard this exact argument before presented sincerely.

Well it will eventually destroy itself so probably.

You remember the part where all the first capitalists sat down and blueprinted exactly how capitalism was gonna work right up until the heat death of the universe?

Yeah me neither

Ok, so once means of production gets cheap enough then there is no practical difference between capitalism and communism? Obviously we need to be able to trade for services and land so money just stays the same then? And how would a marxist utopia police crypto-currency anyways and black markets exist even in North Korea…

what

have you even read the wikipedia page on communism? how does "no money, no private property, no commodity production" sound like capitalism at all to you?

careful not to fall for it

literally tea-party 2.0

I guarantee you at least one or two of the old white people at these "free speech" rallies unironically identified with the tea party back when it was a thing.

Well we should probably plan ahead before something bad happens, because I have a feeling things are going to get very "interesting" soon with all the emerging tech. The problem is that soon an individual may posses the power that once took an entire corporation decades to achieve, so that makes lone psychos extremely dangerous to our survival as a species. What do we do with violent /poltards? Final solution? Surely there has to be a better way otherwise we're no better than them. Eventually we have to get to a point where we have 100 percent trust across the entire population, which may seem impossible but if you think about it we have no choice, eventually.

I've been struggling now for a while with this problem and how to solve it without crushing, dystopian, authoritarianism. I think that at some point we have to come up with higher levels of morality instead of knee jerk reactions. An example would be how the ancient Greeks would have ideological debates in the town square versus social media clickbait and mass shaming. Right now our culture is putting such a high precedent on not offending people that it actually is becoming offensive in its own right.

The best idea I can come up with is to divide the citizenry up into small tribe like groups and then having trust between those groups all the way to the top, but it's essential that we start formulating this kind of society, perhaps with cryptography, before the 0.1% figures out how much a liability we are and engages in mass population control aka another world war but this time with nukes. The elite would survive such an event so it becomes an increasingly attractive option, but if we could somehow put our differences aside and cooperate on a mass level we could maybe make an appeal to spare us.

I think the way to appeal to the elite is to appeal to their fear of death and ever-longing desire to slow down their eventual demise. IF we could come up with a mass open source project where millions, perhaps billions, of people could work together across the globe in an effort to stave off biological aging then the elite would see a practical purpose in letting us live.

But that is the beautiful part about capitalism. It functions according to game theory. Communism is centralized and planned but the free market is what dictates who gets what.. in that sense it's like a form of AI coaxing humans into replicating technology. I'm pointing out that communism really doesn't make sense with consideration to emerging technology, but capitalism doesn't fall apart the same way, although it actually might.

That's effectively impossible though! A black market would always exist, and how do you decide where people get to live and who gets to use the AI and 3D printers? What if you want to do drugs? Are you implying making abstract ideas illegal? When bits in a computer are arranged into crypto-currency then that would be illegal? How could you ever stop people trading things? Even if you got your way (impossible) then VOTES would be a form of currency.

Communism, as I understand it, was thought up around the idea of the factory, and workers controlling the production. BUT what happens when you have a magical black box that does what once took thousands of men? How do you fairly decide who gets to use it without assigning material value to things? To me, the communist ideal simply sounds like an excuse for CRONYISM, and nothing more, especially considering what lies ahead on our timeline.

Really, I'm here fishing for ideas to a thought problem that has been bothering me for quite some time. HOW DO WE DECIDE WHO GETS WHAT AND WHERE DO THEY GET TO GET IT?

yes, that's it. marx dreamed up communism so he could make his buddy engels the head of toothbrush redistribution and take a cut of the profits. absolutely.

Its tempting

...

KEEP YOUR WORD
KEEP YOUR FUCKING STUFF.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONE FUCKINGGGGGGGGGGGGGG DOLLARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Grima Wormtongue's probably the one behind Stefan looking old and worn; putting shit inside his skull and all that

...

I thought Chunk reneged on his denial a while back. What's the tepidness still?

Fixed. As shit as lolbertarians are, its mostly Boomers pushing the "kids these days don't know how good they have it because we didn't have the internets and them smartphones back in MY day…"

Work would probably be abolished. I don't think capital would allow this though, as human labor is the source of all value and abolishing humans from the production line would abolish surplus value, aka profit.

By that logic, Feudal and Slave societies also "function according to game theory" since they too arose "organically" as a response to certain historical conditions, and hence are as "beautiful" as capitalism for you.

You know, there were times in history in which markets were either a minor aspect of economic life or entirely nonexistent. There is nothing eternal about markets; their existence presupposes certain material conditions, viz. deprivation of large portions of the population of the means to access or produce their own subsistence. Once these conditions disappear, so will markets, including "black" ones.

This, but I wouldn't mind having them both get shot. There is no such thing as excess when it comes to Red Terror.

nah, capitalism is.

That's fucked up. Really fucked up

fuckin saved

t. Yacht-owning vacationeer gambling away millions

They will never get that good. You've bought way too much into the 3D printing meme. They're modeling tools, not Star Trek replicators.

I like how you both badmouth controlling AI in an authoritarian way and a democratic way. Of course, in socialism, AI will be managed democratically.

No, that's capitalism.

Too bad their alternative is shit and they may reject it but they'll never do violence against it or any of its agents.

When I say the alternative, I mean the fact that whatever they choose that isn't communism will be total garbage. They'd probably fuck up communism too.

...

Fuck off, bootlicker. Give me communism or give me annihilation.

>Communism, as I understand it, was thought up around the idea of the factory, and workers controlling the production.
No you idiot, communism is production for use (rather than market exchange) at a societal level, not groups of workers individually controlling factories.

Vast numbers of people are put out of work and capitalism is thrown into crisis. Or alternatively in a communist society we'd all simply have less work to do.

Through a combination of collective decision making and cybernetic coordination mechanisms.

defoo.org/isabella-molyneux/
ctrl + f "argument"

how many of those actually just want social democracy ?

If only he knew, if only he knew…

The foster care system is objectively worse than even abusive parents.

Stefan is a narcissistic sophist, but his viewpoints on parenting is one of the few things he got right. It's impossible to know whether he actually practices what he preaches, but peaceful parenting is the only ethical way to raise a child.

Ironically, it's likely to create a true anti-authoritarian who won't obey just because someone with "property rights" told them to.

no parent need to start beating their kids again

youtubedoubler.com/?video1=q3cZ4dJbjWU&start1=0&video2=bbS-Zhz31CA&start2=271&authorName=

It doesn't matter. What's important is that the potential for radicalizationis there.

Are you guys also going to take this video down?

No we like this one we're leaving it up.

probably cause he's of jewish lineage

honestly tho, he's completely right about peaceful parenting

Except for the fact that he literally psychologically abuses his child.

Indeed, unfortunately too many people here are the victims of splitting and they can't comprehend that sometimes people like Stefan can be right, so instead they have knee jerk reactions to everything without giving it any thought.

Hello where are they proofs?

Even if that was true, that'd just make him a hypocrite, not disprove what he advocates.

Literally in this thread.

Also, the idea of raising a child as a project is a fucking massive red flag. He also thinks you were abused if you weren't raised by AnCaps.
Take your le rational skepticism™ and stick it up your oh so superior arse.

now Holla Forums needs to kill these 51% and the other 49% to archieve true communism

now they vote for a bunch of retarded SOC-DEMs because they changed the words around to DEM-SOC

Stefan's shitty relationship with his parents and the extreme viewpoints that come from that isn't relevant to the parenting that he advocates. Calling incentives "bribes" is dishonest, and while they're not optimal, they're better than the alternative of threats or bullying. It's important to teach a kid that not following your agreements has bad consequences, that's just a fact, whether you believe those consequences are fair or not. Lightly teasing and being honest with a kid acting dumb isn't mocking or putting down, that's just a stretch, and also unrelated to what he advocates.
This is entirely a question of whether parents have to do favors for their kids and can decline if the kid decides to be nonreciprocal, if you think they have an obligation to do so, then that could be considered punishment, if they don't, then that could be considered bargaining. If his stance is contrary to his previous stance, then again, that just proves he's a hypocrite, not that what he advocates is wrong.

Regardless of anything else, I don't think any rational person who say those videos prove Stefan is anywhere close to abusive. He might be, but those videos don't prove it.
No worse than the normal reason of having a kid because you're selfish and want a kid.
I'm not arguing that he's not a dumbass.
It's not le rational skepticism, it's just not indulging in black and white thinking and disregarding truth because someone unsavory said it.