What if the rich just keep on maintaining robust welfare systems to placate the proletariat and prevent them from...

What if the rich just keep on maintaining robust welfare systems to placate the proletariat and prevent them from chopping their heads off so they can continue to enjoy their billions on their top floor penthouses in perpetuity until the end of time? Even the Roman patrician class understood the importance of a robust welfare state.

Attached: monkey eyes.jpg (634x875, 234.47K)

Other urls found in this thread:


It's coming…universal income, social credit system and cash-less currency. In other words SLAVERY, with no way out, that will destroy the working class and be entirely run by a fake economy.

they can't

Which is most likely what will have to happen when automation kicks in full force.
Universal income is already being proposed by some very big "enlightened" capitalists like Bill Gates and such.

summarize why

Why can't they go some sort of syndicalism where workers and owners work together? I mean, it would make things run better.


Yeah Fascism came from Syndicalism but really if the Bougerious wanna not have their heads chopped off why don't they do something similar?

google Bookchin

Rate of profit falling.

There is only room for so much growth.

God damn that's the first time I've seen that phrase in years

This. It contradicts the internal logic of capitalism. Sure, they may cave under pressure of the social unrest, but the thing is, every individual Capitalist only cares about cutting expenses and maximizing profits. Thus, when left to its' own devices, the Capitalists will inevitably dismantle welfare state and destabilize capitalism.

Case in point: Modern times, and development past the collapse of the Soviet Union.

it's idealism. capitalist governments are going to try to cut off welfare wherever they can as profitability continues to fall. not only this, but human beings as a species don't have accelerating levels of consumption, on the contrary we consume the same exact things every day regularly.

The falling rate of profits
They will either


I don't indulge false premises.

Attached: 1344177706902.png (2688x2688, 141.56K)

Welfare capitalism is far more aligned with porky's interests than a Dickensian ancap hellscape alternative. You should take note that mega porkies are always the ones pushing for a more robust welfare state, only petit bourgeois small business owners actually raise a stink about welfare.

where did Lenin write on that again?

Theres only so much labour to go around laddy. You cannot create perpetual socdemism while also keeping the capital accumulation going, it is going to have to be paid with something.

The Social-Credit system is not a form of SocialSecurity
The Social-Credit system is an Anti-Corruption/Parasatism measure launched by the goverment
Ismail has already explained this in the China thread on /Marx/

It is in their "human" interest known as "survival", to placate angry proles, but it is in their class interests to accumulate more and rise above other capitalists, and class interests trump anything else, even "racial solidarity" if such a thing exists. Words are empty, and "pushing" is a meaningless gesture as they don't spend one cent of their wealth to advance the goal, and when rubber hits the asphalt, they do nothing to stop the dismantling of the welfare state, and stop its advancement. It costs them nothing to say that "someone else" should do something, as long as their own wealth and way of life remains untouched.

Attached: 1344962047650.png (569x304, 268.91K)

Because the ruling class doesn't want stability, it wants endless growth, which means any sort of compromise for the sake of their own safety means being less competitive in the market.

Because something, somewhere, has to give. An increasing world population and a more and more extravagant lifestyle by the ultra-rich does not a good situation make.

People like to equate our period with earlier points in history (ancient empires, 1,000+ years of feudalism, etc.) but the comparison isn't there and it's not there for a very simple reason: exponential increases. For example. a ruler of old might have consumed 25 acres of land over a period of 50 years with a population of 10 million. Now, such a person by comparison consumes 500 acres of land over a period of 100 years with a population of 100 million. Repeat until we either reverse entropy or start nuclear war.

The Capitalism of Marx' time is a piranha fish compared to the gigantic shark it is today. This literally can't continue forever.

It can and will. It will reach space and literally consume planets and then find a way to consume entire universes and then consume reality itself and then create a new reality and then consume that reality.

IF what you are saying is true, then socialism will come about when technological level is high enough and world is fully post scarcity, however, now that socialist tread is gone, welfare state is dying, and the rich keep getting richer.

Attached: Post-Soviet world.png (1307x523, 254.68K)


I don't know, it escaped a peripheral semifeudal empire going communist in the last century by the skin of its back.
Yes, Capitalism now is exponentially worse than Capitalism in Marx's time, but the example of the Soviet Union altered the way one can see history, broke the ice, so to speak.
1789 was historically necessary and with progressive elements, peasant armies BTFO'd every monarchy in sight, sped up the material conditions, great success.
1848 was a farce that got coopted by nationalists
1870 was massacred immediately
1917 created a global superpower and forced the welfare state in imperalist countries
1968 like 1848, but neolibs instead of nationalists
20xx ??

They produce their own gravekeepers, and so on.
I bet that in 10 years from now even Stalin will be as normalised as De Gaulle and Napoleon in current discourse.

Attached: uy.jpg (309x317, 33.85K)

Was Stalin ever wrong?

t. Nick Land

in 1848, the radicals were nationalists

>tfw Dark Souls is based on reality and the only way to stop capitalism is to stop rekindling the flame but it's impossible since the universe makes it impossible, and anyone who tries to stop it is defying the laws of the universe and the capitalist overlords of our capitalist overlords of our capitalist overlords of our capitalist overlords of our capitalist overlords…

Attached: 6m NRW.jpg (640x474, 204.96K)

Welfare capitalism was possible in the West because the West had material conditions to make one.



welfare reduces the rate of profit further, and we're in the endgame of falling rate of profit

austerity is an attempt to keep capitalism alive

Because endless growth is impossible. Capital is not amenable to human needs, and there's only so much oil in the ground, so to speak.

It's like marxists are obsessed about getting the means of production but not the benefits of doing thag

universal basic income is something we don't have now, that would make countries better places to live

You're responding to one of the few ways "capitalism" can survive

basic income is not "capitalism"

They don't fucking care you pleb.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (710x399, 542.12K)

I put it in quotes because it can outlive capitalism. If capitalism were to reach a state where the wheels were constantly falling off every few years, the current order could be preserved with a command economy ruled by corporations, facilitated by a cashless UBI society. It's what people bandy around as neofeudalism.

Is that why capitalists are fighting AGAINST all these things?