Posting this because I was having doubts myself. I thought antiwork was about posting screenshots of a chat with your asshole boss. Nope. It's a circle jerk for lazy people. They are morons. Always complaining about how hard their life is even when they live in the best economic times ever. Oh and most of them are from the US. I don't think they even realize the privilege that comes with that. They're all leftists. They don't know what it's like to live under a socialist regime. I do. Yeah companies do exploit them. Well boo-hoo. No one forced them to sign their contracts. Believe me where I live everything is way worse but I'm not complaining. I'm grateful that because of capitalism I am able to learn anything I want and I have the possibility to actually not work for anybody. They all want to sit on their ass and get paid for it. They don't care about their poor spending habits. They are all hypocrites. If they really wanted to get out of the rat race they would have to WORK their ass off. There is no other way. All of them are simply delusional.

Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the product of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. For the New Intellectual, 1961

Communism is literally the worst thing to happen to humanity.

When it was invented, communism was created with a single purpose in mind - to subjugate and enslave. It does not go deeper than that. The rest was made as the people who spread it went along.

During the course of it's lifetime, communism was the perpetrator of countless deaths, famines and wars. Communism is responsible for why the world isn't a utopia yet - if it didn't exist, we would be at least 50 years ahead of us right now. But all is took was for a single manipulator to talk about communism, and the people followed it, blindly, like sheep. The countless dictators propped up by communism, just because it benefited it, caused millions to suffer and pass away.

Communism is a cancer in society, and must be eliminated by any means necessary. I wish it was never brought into existence.

For all the pro-socialist Americans out there:

When you decided to get on your phone, laptop, tablet, etc. to send out a tweet or post on other social media platforms, can you do me a favor? Would you please ask yourself what made it so you are able to do that? What gave you the ability to have a public voice so easily at your fingertips? If your answer is anything but capitalism, here is a lesson for you.

When most Americans think of the widespread advent and distribution of electricity, the name Thomas Edison tends to pop up. This is partly true. While Thomas Edison did popularize Direct Current power, and held many patents for its use, it wasn’t the only way to produce power. The major issue with Direct Current is that it doesn’t travel long distances very well. This made it so every city that adopted this method of power distribution had to have one or more power plants, and areas in rural America would have been left out of being powered because the infrastructure cost to distribute Direct Current would have been astronomically high.

In comes an immigrant from Serbia. His name was Nikola Tesla. Tesla had an idea for the induction motor. The induction motor would create Alternating Current. Alternating Current could be transferred over relatively thin wire compared to Direct Current with minimal voltage loss. To put this in perspective, look at the 2 wires running a lamp in your house (Alternating Current) versus the wires coming from your car’s battery (Direct Current). Tesla knew that Alternating Current was the future of power distribution, and he tried selling his idea to Thomas Edison. Edison, however, was swore it wouldn’t be profitable and was all in on Direct Current (Probably because Direct Current was his own idea). So, being in a free-market capitalist country, Tesla looked elsewhere.

Tesla went to Westinghouse. Tesla didn’t really want to sell just his idea as much as he wanted capital to implement. Westinghouse gave him the capital to do this.

Now let us look at the United States today. Alternating current goes to every business, every house, every hospital, etc. You have power to charge up your communication devices because of capitalism. Westinghouse had capital to give to Tesla, and he believed in Tesla’s idea so much he was willing to risk his capital to see it brought to life.

If Tesla’s Alternating current distribution system would have been beaten by Edison’s Direct Current system in widespread implementation, Westinghouse would have been out all of his money. He took the risk with the hope of profiting from that risk, and he did profit from his investment.

This is not a bad thing, which so many of you seem to think. Westinghouse took that capital and continued to invest in new innovation. Was George Westinghouse richer because of his risky investment in Tesla? Sure he was, because he took a risk driven by the thought of MAKING MONEY OFF THE RISK. As for Tesla, he came to the United States’ free market because he needed an economy that would allow him to get the capital implement his invention. No other economy in the world at the time could have provided him with this.

There are many, many, many more examples that brought you your smart phone, tablet, etc. There is a reason that the mass of technological advancements come from the United States, and that is because capitalism is the only way to have innovation.

So, use the platforms and devices to complain about the system that brought you those platforms and devices. In a way, isn’t supporting innovative technology a form of hypocrisy?

I am a communist and i was wondering why you are capitalists. Please answer with real arguments and dont just rage.

In my native country, italy, most young people voted for the centre-right coalition in the last election, and gen z a lot more than millennials, and most of our left is not socialist, why do young americans listen to the crazy populism of bernie, when everybody that knows history and economics know he is a moron? He used to say "millionaires shouldnt exist" in the 1970s, then he became one, he talked about the 1%, then joined It and started talking about the 0,1%, he said that he can make money with a useless book but CEOs that by making money create jobs and wealth are evil and cant exist, he proposes the highest taxes in the world to make all american businessmen escape,and still refuses to say that he would heavily raise taxes for eveybody.

I gave my sister a couple books the other day.. "1984" by George Orwell along with "a brave new world". She came home from school today telling me she got suspended for reading the book. They told her they have a policy banning specific books including both 1984, and A brave new world. She was told that it is "communist propoganda". The Irony in this is incredible. What are your thoughts on this? Democrats seem to be taking the book verbatim and don't seem to understand the true intentions of the book.

I want to emphasis the fact that this show is fictional. This type of genre obviously dismisses objective reality to create imaginary events and people. This allowed the producers to refer to their own depictions and critiques of capitalism rather than critiquing the actual fundamentals of capitalism.

Economic system: If the producers of this show were making reference to South Korea’s current economic system then this show would be operating under a mixed economy. Assuming this isn’t the case they still presented a distorted application of capitalism when addressing the economics aspects of it. Capitalism implies that trade and industry is owned by private owners for profit, rather than the state. It's not explicitly indicated in the show how the capitalist got their money. If the government intervenes within the trade of the economy it would be regulated by the state, implying that it's not a capitalist system.

Political aspect: Capitalism is an economic AND political system. The political aspect of capitalism relates to private property since it presupposes the limited role of the government over its citizens. To break down the political aspect of capitalism, private property requires property rights and property rights derive from individual rights. Rights are to stop the involuntary initiation of force from one individual onto another. The conductor(s) of squid games didn't consider rights in the first round because the concept of voluntary action wasn't recognized when the participants weren't aware of possibly dying. Even if a participant went back they were secluded from the main land and lost the voluntary choice of leaving unless there was a democratic agreement to leave. If anything squid games demonstrates the authoritarian nature of democracy by alluding to the majority controlling the minority. Let's not forget that democracy is the driving principle of socialism.

It occurred to me that with all the socialists, marxists or market socialists that I debate with have no chance replacing capitalism and there is no real plan for the people upset at today's mixed economy with something else or better.

The majority of people who use Marx's critiques of capitalism or saying capitalism is racist, only use it to attack capitalism - in a similar way BLM want to abolish the police. They have no plan on replacing it - it is destroying it for the sake of destroying it.

Sure there are some suggestions like 'lets divert the money for police to social care', but these are just suggestions 'in the air'. It is not planned out and hasn't been seriously thought about.

At least marxism and socialism had some plan (a wrong plan) to replace capitalism with and usher in the utopia. People of today are not marxists or socialists - they have no plan. They just want capitalism gone.

So apparently the man who killed Thompson is an Italian. As an Italian Paleoconservative I feel the need, in face of the DDD movement, to talk about how senseless it is to see Mangione as anything else than an evil, violent murderer, and how wrong is to hate on Capitalism, which apparently is the real target of the DDD supporters, but is also the only possible economic engine of a republic.

First, about the man, Mangione, as long as he really is the killer, he is just a killer, a criminal. No matter how rich was Thompson, no matter how badly is economic business treated buyers, he is a human being and Mangione killed him. As a Catholic I can not see a killer as a hero, unless he/she killed Hitler or something. Thompson, unless the contrary is proven, followed the rule of law, and he crafted his way to success according to the rules of Capitalism. If Thompson broke the rules of law, then he should have been jailed well before a Socialist man killed him. A rich man should be charitable, but if he is not, it does not mean he deserves death !

Second, about the movement. If you see such a figure as a hero because he "stood up" against the economic system you want to change, and think what he did was an act of heroism, you are misguided. He is just a backstabber to the system he was born in, and he is full of Marxist ideas and rethoric. Marx himself was a rich man. However, if he was poor, it would not make him right. A poor man should work hard to get on top, and by working hard I mean do it according to the rules of law.

Third, about the system. No matter what, Socialism never works. So many Socialist/Communist thinkers, so many governments trying to put it to work, it produced death, hunger and poverty. How many times should it be tried ?

Capitalism is not a "good" economic system, it is not good on paper, but is the only actually working one, because the others are indeed good on paper, but not in practice. Collectivist economic systems do not take into account human nature. They do not take into account the internal will to power of all men. Capitalism works because it turns the human will to power, their greed, their desires, their egocentrism, into its strenght. All men are going to work way harder if they have the freedom to take the products of their labors for themselves. They are going to produce much more. And they are going to spend their money and resources much more efficently because they are doing it for themselves, not to help someone else. We are ego centered bipedal apes, fueled only by our will to power, and we need to face it.

Under Socialism workers produce resources for the State, and then the State takes it and distributes them. Under this system workers will do the bare minimum, and few people will ever start a family business. Why even bother if you can not get the product of your own labors yourself ? They will just do what is required by the State. And the State will use money and resources in the LEAST efficient way possible because, at the end, the State is made of men, and men will just do the bare minimum if it is not about themselves or their families.

Some people may get left behind because they are not as fit as others to thrive in the Capitalist system. But it is still the least bad system, because giving more power to government will only make the system less efficient and society overall poorer. Even for poor people, getting employed by a business is the best way to grow out of poverty. Then there is charity, which should never be forgotten.

On the other hand, relying on the State to survive is humiliating and it falls apart if the government suddenly changes ideas or ruling party. Self reliance is paramount, because we are the same human beings as 200.000 years ago and trying to force powerful people helping the weak is not going to ever work. The classic Socialist morality is what I call slave morality. Slave morality means not accepting we are born different (our innermost nature, the human Soul, is equally valuable in anyone, and everyone is equally worthy, but regarding external characteristics it is far from the same), and trying to bring down to our levels whoever is higher up. 

You may now think...were not concepts such as "Will to power" and "Slave morality" parts of the writings of Nietzsche, one of the most anti Catholic thinkers ?! Yes, they are, but let me explain, Nietzsche was wrong on many things, but the way he saw mankind was right. Except he believed humans being what they are was a good thing. As a Catholic I believe human nature is fallen, but economics must work with it, because people involved in economics are not from religious orders or Christian praying communities. As for slave morality, he was wrong about Christianity being part of it. We Catholic believe power and richness to be neutral, if not even a potential force of good, it is all about what you choose to do with it. Socialism is the real Slave morality. And when I tackle it I feel like Nietzsche tackling on decadent society.

I finally want to talk about the concept of social classes.

Look at Mangione, he was rich, 6'2, 220 pounds of muscle, 130+ IQ, the best student in his course, a AI and tech college degree with already some work experience, all of this at 26. He was one of the few, not of the many. He could have become more powerful than Thompson in the next 20 years. He could have beaten him at his own game thanks to the gifts God gave to him. He could maybe have become President somewhere in the 2050's or 2060's. He will be in jail until then. He will be in jail until death.

Then look at me, an Italian Paleocon. Not poor but not rich either, jobless, 5'10, 125 pounds of bones, neanderthaloid face, ~80 IQ, no college degree (you guess...), 27 years old. I do not even live in America, the richest of all countries, I live in a South Euro dirty shithole called Italy. Social Democrats ruled my country for decades and destroyed economics. We have the highest taxes on earnings of all Europe.

But I will never give up, no matter what.

Social classes do not exist. Mangione had everything, now he will be lowest of the low. In the next 30 years, on the other hand, I may become the leader of a political party and earn 200.000 USD dollars a year. Thanks to Capitalism, the engine of social mobility.

P.S. I believe Thompson should have been under arrest too, but this is because some people in his company broke the law. It has NOTHING to do with Capitalism.

Why should the world expect equality of outcome without equality of effort?

Wealth is property and the amount accumulated by one person is not the business of any other person and it is only in jail that wealth fairly distributed

Nor is wealth hoarded. it does one or more of 3 things, as it does

The rich will place their wealth in the banks which is then loaned out by the banks which in turn creates new jobs

The wealthy will invest their wealth in some other industry through stocks/equities which again will create new jobs

The wealthy will spend their wealth on their own consumption which in turn also creates new jobs

That's is the trickle down theory and it works fine

THE PROBLEM THE LEFT WHINES ABOUT BUT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND, is that government has inserted itself because it thinks it knows better than the market where wealth should flow. Through policies of theft ( taxation ), prohibition, state granted monopolies, subsdies, and regulations, it has stifled the flow of wealth and thus the poor suffer for it

I feel like most people really aren’t capable of conceptualizing how much money $1 billion actually is, and that it is physically impossible for one person to produce that amount of value.

While I've tried to instill a social instinct in my daughter, I've recently had some distressing words with her. Anyways, for some backstory, she's an associate manager for a local grocery store. I asked her how she's doing with supply-chain and labor issues, which is when I learned some questionable things about her hiring and supplier practises.

Regarding suppliers, she expresses an unforgiving nature when an order is but a few hours late. Apparently she is quick to source new suppliers, instead of starting dialogue with her current ones when they're having issues that no one can help. She said that she made no demands on them when they could not give her the kind of service she needed, and instead found someone who could.

Regarding labor, she says that it is not difficult to judge which employees will succeed and which won’t. She prefers young people, especially those with rich parents. In her view, it's more likely that an employee with rich parents will have a more reliable vehicle, and be more likely to pursue education outside of the liberal arts, which brings up another thing- she actually avoids the more educated... I'm thinking that she's intimidated by them, and I'm unsure how she believes she'll succeed if she shields herself from the newest ideas and worldviews...

What's more, she's trying to start new businesses with her earnings, and she tells me that if an applicant for a loan ever mentioned his personal need or any personal feeling whatever, the interview ended and he was never given another chance to speak to her...

I'm writing here because I'm concerned about the rate at which she's spreading her ruthless and illiberal tendencies. Help!