The fatal flaw to capitalism is lack of purpose. This might sound vague and obvious at first, but I think that there is reason to why this flaw should be acknowleged.

When two humans agree to trade with one another, both humans get a profit of some sorts. This could be to give work to get money, or to give discipline to get knowledge (academics) , to give stewardship to get security (feudalism).

If humans were to achieve an infinite amount or overhumanly amount of resources what what they do with it? Pleasure, idols, etc? Most money that is used today is not used for progress but rather pleasure. If all money was used to make money-making methods, I think society would be very different. But even if all money-making methods were made, what is the ultimate profit? Ending world hunger (that is a good thing), ending disease (that is a good thing), ending suffering (that is a good thing). A common pattern between all the most universal resources is that they have nothing to do with self-gratification, I believe that self-gratification is a distraction used to blind the people from true progress. Ultimately, with enough resources it is more profittable for a business to sell goods and services then to hoard them. If business gets rich enough, it might make ways to make really cheap food and therefore there would be more of a profit to sell cheap food at a cheap price then to hoard it. But kinds of money-making methods in my personal opinion aren't that common. Possibly this could be that the amount of dopamine received from short-term pleasures is much stronger than righetousness. This is what brings me to thinking about this as a lack of purpose, if modern society doesn't have righetousness then how can modern society have purpose? With the average of modern Western society, many beliefs cause for progress to be forgotten about. Why would a person think about solving world hunger when a person could be having extraheterosexualeon (extraheterosexual actions, actions of intercourse outside of man-woman relationships), or why would a person think about raising a family when a person could have endless amounts of intercourse. The sad unfortunality that I think is present within society is that a life focused on self-numbingness is more addictive than a life of self-fulfillment and fulfillment via others. I think that self-numbingness is the culprit of progress in modern America, there have been many ways of self-numbingness; alcohol, smoking/vaping/nicotine, drugs/substances/psychedelics, lust media, food additives and non-natural ingredients, physical posession temporaries and short attention entertainment and media (this one seems to be alarming, as with a long attention span how can someone retain learning?). 
All of these have a similarity: lack or neglect of a grand purpose. In urban areas especially certain areas, there is lots of what I would call "useless capitalism" where there is free trade but no purpose surrounding the trade. I don't think capitalism is the problem (I am a free-market capitalist), I think that lack of purpose is what makes drug dealers have jobs in these areas. So many businesses wouldn't exist if simply purpose was reoriented into economics. The reason why people make money is to provide for the necessities of life, there are three skills which fulfill this necessity: hunting, fishing and farming. These three skills though are unfortunately eroding among the mass populace of modern Western society. In my opinion, causing there to be a void of life purpose. If society reverted back to time.  without technological dependency, this void possibly might be able to be filled. The man and the woman have duties of life, the man gets the resources and the woman shares the resources. This logic makes me realize that another reason why there seems to be a disproportionate amount of contentness among the genders is because the female was never made to work, God gave women more smooth muscles and more delicate features because of this. In a hypothetical world, women could live in a collective society and be as joyful as can be because they were made to share. The essence of the creation of woman in the first place was that God had taken a piece of man out of man. Woman is dependent to man but man needs to take care of woman, an equally-responible relationship through with masculine hierachy as the male is the head of the household. So it brings me to the idea that capitalism is inherently anti-feminine and therefore makes females feel "rushed" or alone. When a female finishes making a product when is she the most joyful? That is a question. Society could be remade so that men work in a competitive portion of society, with as little economic rules as possible but as many moral rules as possible. While the woman could be at home reading the word of God or teaching it to the children. In my opinion, most of the jobs today are not very useful. If economy was simplified (physical currency, no systems, simple goals, economy of necessities rather than wanting things) then life can be simplified and the path for mankind can be made more clear. If every man did the simple three jobs (hunting, fishing, farming) and then used additonal profit to improve these three areas of economy then life could be fulfilled. With some people, there is a perceived balance between self-wanting and fulfillment. But I argue that fulfillment is how the self satisfies its own wantings and that activites outside of the core three jobs are less fulfilling and therefore less meaningful. In my personal opinion, Capitalism should be founded on top of morality, without such, capitalism becomes solely a means for impatience and lust.

Just bumping this, actually quite interesting. The fatal flaw of capitalism. Can anyone think of a solution?

>>2954
>>2867
Definitely very interesting. I have a question though. How does the synthesis equilibrium differ from a traditional compromise?

 This post has been removed by moderators 

Yes, this theory (according to itself) suggests that when two opposites come into contact with eachother, then a synthesis is bound to come into existence, this suggests a cycle of synthesis and then branching off in opposition to such a mix, forming new ways to approach problems or conflicts. For example, if two people want fruit, one wants a banana and the other wants an apple, then a synthesis approach could be giving a banana on one day and an apple on the other day. Though, this approach does require planning, therefore the fruit provider might disregard a method of planning for simply choosing a fruit that is neither banana nor apple. If the fruit provider comes back and brings an orange instead of a banana or an apple, most likely both fruit wanters will reject the orange. Therefore this fruit provider will receive the benefit of not needing to compromise nor share with the fruit wanters. This can be seen as an allegory to economics, but it can also be seen as an allegory to how defining the abstract can lead to reasoning beyond yes or no. If the apple is communism and the banana is capitalism, then the orange (hypothetically socialism or an alternative to both previous systems) could simultaneously keep the other fruit wanters unsatisfied but unaffected. This could be argued to be the reason why socialism is so popular in comparison to communism. According to itself, this doen't just apply to ideology and economics but that it also applies to logic.

Whatever happens it won't be an easy fix in the future. There will have to be incremental reforms as not to shock the entire fragile house of cards we live in, because too much chaotic change could destroy the entire economy and any confidence it had left.

In my opinion, the US would need to cut governmental budgets significantly. We would need to cut back governmental waste, and unnecessary interventionism. We would need to retire our status as the world police too, and get out of all these wars. We would need to secure our borders and STOP the taxpayer handouts to illegal aliens who never belonged here in the first place. We would need to start giving lucrative incentives to those who produce and benefit our local economies. We would also have to give lucrative incentives, like tax cuts, to younger families. We need younger people to start procreating again, the average American family is the only future this country really has after all, there would be no "America" without family.

We also need to allow the markets to correct itself naturally too. There will be some losses and pain doing so. Insolvent corrupted entities no longer being bailed out by taxpayers, but forced into bankruptcy. In the meantime, a restoration in local economies throughout the nation must re-emerge as fail-safe alternatives: farmers markets, flea markets, street markets, small shops and thrift stores, even home-run businesses providing goods and services. Eventually after some hardship the country would be able recover and basic retail would come back (albiet not huge former corporate chains).

We would also have to accept and adopt ALL energy options available, for complete energy independence. Coal, natural gas, oil, wind, solar, thorium, nuclear power, hydroelectric power, (still early developing) cold fusion etc. Many individuals should consider wood burning stoves and wood burning furnaces for heat during winter as not to strain the power grid (as well for SHTF prepping). Anything that makes us energy independent and resilient should be promoted and adopted.

Once the huge governmental ponzi scheme goes away, the sanity lost in today's society will make its long overdue return.

Totally agree with you. The current situation should have never been allowed and the current and future damages is a tragedy. However, we need something to replace the central bank with right? If there was no inflation at all, you would probably have deflation. Incentivising more risk averse and rent seeking behavior and in turn (atleast in theory which def could be wrong) slowing technological and economic growth. It was just speculations of what should be the replacement to the current system. I think you are correct in your critique of todays synergy between the central bank and the rogue government. That scheme need to end real fast.

The whole "we need price inflation for [blah blah]" is bunk socialist theory. Price inflation is not necessary, in fact it is merely a consequence of bad failed monetary policy. If you create fiat currency, or debt, out of thin air it devalues the currency you hold... and when your currency is devalued the prices for hard assets and commodity goes up in price. The stronger the currency's purchasing power the less price inflation, and vice versa the weaker the currency's purchasing power the higher price inflation becomes.  Thinking we can spend $1,000,000,000,000 ($ Trillion) every 100 days on government budgets is extremely illogical and flawed. That is WHY we have such high price inflation today. That is WHY we have such an out-of-control bloated wasteful government to begin with.

Yeah atleast the current system, but we may need some alternative central banking scheme as a replacement. I guess we still need some inflation to enduce spending. However, definitely not in its current form.

Central banking should be abolished and so should fiat currency. The evil and rot that defines the US government today soley exists because of a massive central banking ponzi scheme. They are sucking the blood dry for numerous future generations to come....or perhaps not to come?

Yeah some serious shaking of the current political system is needed to turn the situation around. 

Sometimes I wonder if capitalism has a fatal flaw in it's incentive structure. As of now, it seems only business is rewarded. When everyone is hyper focused on business they neglect to take active part in democracy. Opening a void for evil to crawl forth and take roots. When people wake up and realise the authoritarian's policies are hurting their lives, it's too late. The snake's coil has been wrapped too tight already.

Perhaps capitalism need some form of incentive to make it worthwhile for the general population to take part in politics and keep the government limited.

Personally I think it is far overdue we get rid of those who wish for global hegemony in the first place. We need governments who do what is in the best interests of their fellow citizens rather than themselves and their own corrupt special interests. Doing this would require all of us respecting we must live in a multi-polar world, where each country respects the sovereignty and natural security concerns of other countries, where economic trade and industry is not politicized or weaponized but considered real necessary progress.

Although it is a cycle, the point is empires rise and fall and always have. It does not nessessarily mean an empire will rise again, although it is possible. Most never do. I predict we will eventually see some other nation adopt free market capitalism and start to rise replacing us as a superpower, and that cycle will repeat for another 100 years or so until the next empire falls the same way.

Lets hope the pattern don't repeat this time and we dodge  the bullet

Reply to the whole chain of theory. I don't think I get it entirely. Can you elaborate on the overall synthesis theory? Is the idea that when two opposites are observed you expect the synthesis of those to emerge?

Wild and probably true, where did you get the graph?

Socialism is simply a massive government running and propping up an economy with tons of national debt, which we have already seen happen to the US. Capitalist countries typically always turn socialist once they adopt a central banking system. Communism is just the fall and demise of former socialist countries. It is not so much an ideology but a period of economic instability and theft of private property, forced wealth redistribution, population replacement, the jailing and even killing of those who oppose the normalization of theft and tyranny. It is the dying last breath of an empire that was created by capitalists later exploited by socialists.

Everyone in the Western world should be extremely concerned right about now.

This ideology would also probably be gnostic and disregard the principlies of Islam and believe in Jesus. So a synthesis of these two ideologies would be complicated: an ideology founded on the idea that God exists in some aspects and not in others, and that they might believe that God exists as an entity but not as a supreme creator, and that this God would sometimes cease from existence and sometimes come back as Jesus and sometimes come back as Allah, but in the grand scheme they would also believe that they don't know if they are agnostic or not, and that they don't know if they know if God exists or not. But generally I think most would believe that God exists sometimes as an entity and sometimes doesn't exist. Also I think that they would believe that some of the principales of Islam are good and some as bad, and some of the principales of Christ are good and some are bad and the same logic with Secularism. A belief might be under this system that homosexuality is a sin when God exists but is not a sin when God doesn't exist. It might become common for people to send the death penalty on people and execute them for not having sodomite orgies when the majority of society believes that God has "gone on vacation in another universe", and then when the majority believes that God has come back that one must repent and baptize and then be executed for practicing in that very act. The economic system, would be that it is illegal to own a business but that public property is also illegal, so the average person would live in an individual area but they  cannot alter that area and only they can be in that area. Because businesses are illegal, capitalism can't exist, socialism can't exist either, so we have a new kind of anarcho-communism again. This time it is more individualized but in a forced way. People are like guinea pigs now, and are only allowed out when the majority believes that God has come back from vacation and that baptist-salvation-executions need to happen. I think I am now landing myself into some kind of mob-rule 1984-like dystopian novel. If anyone has any ideas, I would love to hear any of them. How could someone possibly find the synthesis of this ideology and its opposite? This reminds me what is the opposite of Christianity? I guess it would just be Un-Christianity (belief that Neither God nor Jesus existed), and if I synthesize them both wouldn't that just make agnosticism? (Not sure if God existed, not sure if Jesus existed). Then if I tried finding the synthesis of this and its opposite then I guess I would land into some sort of Agnostic Gnosticism "Is not sure if can be sure if God existed, is not sure if sure if God existed or not".  Then there would be a chain of "Is not sure if can be sure if possibly cannot be sure if indefinitely possibly can be sure if concretely indefinitely possibly cannot be sure if entitiably concretely indefinitely possibly can be sure, etc . . ." I don't know how the chain would continue, if someone knows please make the chain longer, thank you, (I would love to see it, or would I?) But I don't know if the chain will continue or stay put, or even if a chain could philosophically exist. I guess but don't know, is it like finding out what the biggest tangible number is that isn't infinite? Could something be both abstract and concrete? Or a mix of the two qualities?

I believe that there could be a pattern and that for some reason the next big left-wing movement seems to be a synthesis of the last big left-wing movement. To reinstate, anarcho-socialism/communism is morally anarchist, has private property slightly or not all and public property slighty. So what will be the next generation of synthesis in my opinion? I think in order to guess about that, the opposite of Anarcho-Communism is needed to be known. The opposite of Anarcho-Communism would be Morally Totalitarian Capitalism. This form of government already exists in the world; the Middle East. the much of the Middle East lives under both capitalism (but not al of the Middle East, some socialist countries do exist here) and totalitarianism (Islamic theocracy). So what is the synthesis of Anarcho-Communism and Totalitari-Capitalism, the perceived friendship that far leftists have with Palestine right now and coincidentally this friendship started 50 years after the first rise of Anarcho-Communism. This keeps up with the cycle; 1870, 1920, 1970, 2020. This is why I guess that a new ideology will form in this decade or in the early next decade synthesizing Anarcho-Communist new left ideology with totalitarian Islamic theocracy under a capitalistesque system. This ideology could be a form of moral relativism, forming as a coalition against Christianity. This could be some form of Islam-Idealist Anarcho-Totalitarian Mixed-Socialist System. How this might work is that the followers might be agnostic (halfway inbetween atheist and theist), but belive in the principles of Islam. So they might not know or not if Allah actually exists (no offence to Muslims, this is just a hypothetical situation) but live by the principles of Sunni. The law enforcement of such a society could be seen as extremely hypocritical, with allowing people who are agnostic to do whatever they want (anarchy), while the people who live under religion would have to follow Sunni law. How I think this might work is that if a law enforcer believes that you are religious then you are subjected under Sunni law, but if you are believed to be an "ally" of the enforcer then you can do whatever you want. Here is where I think Christians and other theists who aren't Islamic will be disadvantaged. Since this group of people is both disliked by agnostic law and Muslim law, theists would have to convert to Sunni law, or live an anarchist lifestyle with the agnostics, but in this society the Sunnis and the agnostics would probably be the same people, just at different times and places. One hour someone could be practicing the law of Sunni and ending the lives of homosexuals, while the next hour they could be engaging in homosexual activity in the name of the principles of Allah against christianity, or even some kind of "Progressive Islam" could become common in such a society to allow both progressivism and aspects of Sunni law. But just like with old left communism and progressive era socialism, people will probably realize that this lifestyle is a contradiction, therefore the pendulum will probably swing again and a new generation of syntheses will begin. If the pattern stays true, then people will probably start getting sick of Progressive Islam around 2070, and a synthesis of Anarcho-Totalitarian Mixed-Socialist System and its opposite. So what is the opposite of such a system. First I think this should be taken piece by piece. This is a Mixed therefore Market Socialism ideology, so the opposite would be an Anti-Market Anti-Socialism idelogy, since the opposite of this ideology was totalitarian by law and anarchist by action, this ideology would be anarchist by law but totaliatarian by action.

The opposite of socialism could be seen as a system where both private property and public property do not exist and means of production do not exist, this is anarchy. Therefore the synthesis of this would be Anarcho-Socialism, but since it is impossible to have a goverment and to not have a government at the same time. Anarcho-Socialism is more about being Culturally/Morally anarchist, this became popular in the 1970s. I also think it is interesting to note that there is roughly 50 year span inbetwen one generation of these syntheses to the next.

In Synthesis Theory, A synthesis is the thesis of two opposites. An example of this is capitalism and communism, capitalism is the economic system of private property, communism is the economic system of public property. I don't think synthesises are a good idea, this is because mixing opposites leads to gray or black, the worst positions. Socialism was invented by trying to figure out the synthesis of communism and capitalism. Socialism is an ideology where private property exists sometimes, and public property exists sometimes, workers own the means of production. Communism was invented in the 1870s, Socialism was implemented in the 1920s, Anarcho-Communism became prominent in the 1970s. The opposite of socialism could be seen as a system where both private property and public property do not exist and means of production do not exist, this is anarchy. Therefore the synthesis of this would be Anarcho-Socialism, but since it is impossible to have a goverment and to not have a government at the same time. Anarcho-Socialism is more about being Culturally/Morally anarchist, this became popular in the 1970s.