Can someone explain to me whats so bad about capitalism...

PFFFFF i wish. what the right means by globalism is mostly just nebulous ideological fears like big gubmint arresting you for saying god hates fags on facebook or whatever. it has nothing to do with opposing capitalism

Yeah the incentive in capitalism is to work the majority of your life in a job you don't even care about , that sees you as completely replaceable , just for a chance to maybe get a vacation for a week and a half out of the year to spend with your family. Oh and to buy goods that it tells you is central to who you are as a person; to even have any ability to connect with those around you and form community you all have to center your activities around a product.

'The world into a global shopping mall '

It's really really sad. I would prefer a community center over a third taco bell.

Ironically, modern shopping malls were supposed to be community centers. The guy who invented them was a socialist architect that wanted to humanize shopping by making it a social activity, something operated by and for communities. Instead he accidentally contributed to consumerism as a lifestyle, which he openly lamented.
Reviving his original ideas for practical post-capitalism might actually be interesting. There is no reason socialism can't be convenient and friendly.

That's because capitalism is extremely good at taking dissent and turning it into a commodity. It just absorbs it like a giant blob monster. The more you fight it ,the more it swallows the ideas you give against it. The cooler your ideas seem, and the more traction they get, the more people see profit in them.And then before you know it it is on a t-shirt, stripped of all meaning and turned into just a sign. Just another option to package up and sell to people. It's pretty maddening as an artist , because it all starts to feel pretty futile. All the substance of your work gets stamped out too as it is just repeated ad nauseam ..It becomes banal - look at what they do to Van Gogh for a good example. Starry Night might as well just be Mickey Mouse.

And then the public doesn't understand why art tried to take a form that was harder to commodify with conceptual art…But it didn't matter, anyway because capitalism figured out a way to do it regardless, and sell it to elites. Now art just seems like a sign of a sickness..A way to brag that you spent millions on some marks on a canvas that is worth that much simply because it is in a specific context.. . Still in art, I think the problems with capitalism become extremely potent, so maybe it is worth continuing just to do it for that reason.

It is kind of satisfying for people to get angry when they see something they don't think is worth it getting lots of money. They should realize instead that 'worth' is something that is completely constructed …But it seems like more of them think that a classical painting would be 'worthy', when they should realize that money is not really about time or effort or beauty. It is about the marketability of the idea. That, and how hard it is for other people to have access to it. (An original with no copy is worth more money , because other people cannot possibly own it , and thus cannot have access to it ) .

I'm not hating on art; people really misunderstand it and it is a pity . Even if it's stupid to buy a painting of a yellow square on a blue canvas for that much money, it would also be stupid to buy a painting of a nude woman and Zeus frolicking for that much money. Buying a couple of bricks in the middle of a room for that much money would be just as dumb too, but definitely not more dumb than buying a gigantic Jesus painting .All of this art says interesting things about the time period it came from and proposes certain philosophical ideas that are great to think about. But none of it is really 'worth' more than any of the rest of it.

Oh boy, I just went on an art rant.

Don't think of economic systems as good or bad, think of them as historically limited and if they're now playing a progressive or conservative role.

We can't spoonfeed you seriously, either you'll have to ask a more specific question or read up a bit first. You could start off by reading some marxist "classics" (such as Critique of the Gotha Program/Wage Labor and Capital by Marx or Principles of Communism by Engels, all of these are really short and available online on marxists.org). If you prefer jumping straight into something more modern, give Why Marx was Right by Terry Eagleton a shot, then Towards a New Socialism by Cockshott/Cotrell.

i've seen everything now

Also this:
Marx and Engels literally say in their work that capitalism and private property were necessary to create big industry. But they're no longer adequate or beneficial within the existing material conditions.

Check out this site to get a grasp of the absolute basics socialism101.com/basic/

You should read Common Sense (since Americans universally have never read it), as many of the arguments made against hereditary inheritance of power of state can also be made against inheritance of wealth.

man don't employ things, things employ man

stop

So… start your own business?
Is there a reason you haven't started your own business?

Oh god, why didn't anyone else think of that

All people need to do is snap their fingers and employ themselves. Ricardo, Smith, Marx, Keynes, all economists btfo forever.

welp, i'm going to inform pajeet that he shouldn't be working in those sweatshops anymore, he should be an entrepreneur

is there a reason YOU haven't? the only people who talk this shit are cyptocurrency cucks who avoid participating in the market at all costs themselves. what a godawful copout

Fun fact: porky already tried this. It was called "micro loans" and it was an absolute disaster. The idea was that small-timers could get relatively tiny loans, $500 say, in third world countries to become entrepreneurs. Say you wanted money to open up a shop to repair bicycles or something. You'd go to one of these loan sharks micro loan banks, you'd get the money at (allegedly) generous rates, and in no time at all the third world would entrepreneur itself out of poverty.

In reality it was an absolute disaster. It's trickle-down economics in miniature. These people would get their loans, start their businesses, only to inevitably fail because at that level all the people that the theoretical business was supposed to serve were too fucking poor to charge enough to generate a profit. The loans would go unpaid, default, and then they'd be in even worse circumstances than when they started. A decade ago it was being hailed as the savior of the impoverished, a welcome and revolutionary innovation that would raise all ships, etc. Now no one mentions it if at all possible because of the fact that it was a complete and unmitigated disaster.

Attached: posadas was right.png (1348x1600, 1.32M)

Well it brought a billion people out of poverty in Asia, but they're capitalist pigs, it's much better when everyone is poor under communism.

...

got any links/sources?

i don't see suicide net slave factories as ~being lifted out of poverty~ or progress from the prc at all but ok. i guess it's all fine cause westerners get a smartphone out of it

Art is stupid and worthless. Period.

intellectually lazy

the future is soon, comrade
renounce your anti-modernist ways

Attached: 82e0a4605bc4bd0a5ac81f994729ee5b1cc53b2140098716948594c92b829e22.png (441x529, 20.28K)

Stay mad marxist.

Attached: 203DF125-B22A-4C38-98BF-32228740F228.jpeg (226x221, 17.7K)