>>57
>Capitalism works, yes, but based in coercion (violent and non-violent) and structural inequality (because for exploitation to work you need miserable people that will accept working in unfair conditions for food) which is monopoly of material resources needed for life and monopoly of violence.
The universe, by its very nature, is violent. Of course, we would all love for things to be bunny rabbits, green meadows, rainbows and unicorns and everything to be eternally peaceful and free of pain, but that's not reality.

>There's no need for a good will or honorability for capitalism to work, since it's not the main objective. Its target is to maximize the profits, so it'll never inherently lead to equality since it's not a requirement.
No, of course not, but I think there should at least be an effort made to have people who work for profit do so honorably and with good will, yes, it doesn't require these to function, but it will have to adopt such practices if it wishes for long-term viability and stability. I don't hold a strict homo economicus view of capitalism or markets, since that tends to completely strip humanity out of economics and I'm not enough of a misanthrope to do that.

Absolutely equality is also a fantasy, nature has a hierarchy mixed with a little of cooperation, there is no "blank slate" equality, it doesn't exist, has never existed and never will exist. The same man is not even equal to himself from one day to the next. The only equality that I can see that has ever worked long-term has been equality before the law and I even question whether that works since the justice system is now a complete failure. This near 300 year pursuit of equality has caused more death and damage to this world than anything else.

>An Indiviual solution like autarky its a conformist delusion, autonomy is an impossibility considering the distribution of natural resources, almost every resource it's monopolized. And if everyone attemps being self-sufficient, the elites would probably use their coercion to "bring stability" to the system (i.e. USA interventionism, economic blocks, repression). In the worst case scenario, they can't because of monopoly of material resources for life.
I've been following Varg Vikernes for a while and he lives in the French countryside with his wife and their 6 (7?) children using permaculture to create for themselves a sustainable food source and also to replenish the land that has been destroyed by modern agriculture. For some reason the French authorities don't mess with him at all, but the only time they really did was when his wife (legally) purchased four rifles and they thought that they were gonna go pull a "terrorist" attack because of it. I doubt the elites give a shit if a family decides to go live off the grid as much as legally possible since many more millions are in their grasp and in the grand scheme of things, very few people are going to want to reduce their needs and live that kind of life.

By being self-sufficient and autarkic I very much mean on an individual level, certainly if a nation state were to successfully pull that off today, war would be declared on it tomorrow.

>>58
>First of all because this "opinion" assumes that every person blaming the US goverment is a leftist, which is not necessarily the case. We Chileans, Argentinians and Brazilians, we all had leftist goverments for the most part of the previous decades and these goverments weren't exactly popular
I am aware of that, glad to see that Latin America is waking up to the Marxist cancer, although I don't put all trust and faith in the right-wing either, sometimes they can stab you in the back as well. I tend to these days try to remain aloof of the whole left-right paradigm, though, it can be difficult to not get caught up in it all sometimes.
>It's stereotypical of >>53 to consider all Latino people that blame the US goverment "leftists", but then again, an ignorant gringo having stereotypical opinions of other cultures?
To be fair, I guess that was a residual view I still held of Latin Americans since when I was younger I held much more leftist views (often to the left of our Democratic Party).
>And second, because it assumes that our leaders were to blame for the failures back in the 60's. We know they weren't, you won't convince us otherwise. Not because we're closed-minded, but because we've been taking this crap since the early 70's (and when I say "crap" I mean shitty "opinions" like the one I quoted before). This is nothing new to us, we all know the role the CIA and Nixon administration had in that overthrow during the 70's -a role even confirmed by Sanders during a lecture cycle in the last elections
The big man to really blame for that is (((Kissinger))), sad to not see that old cocksucker dead yet. Though, the regimes that were overthrown weren't angels either. Allende was evil and I'm glad he's gone. I wouldn't trust crypto-Marxist (((Sanders))), either (even though what he said is correct) his supporters largely want people who don't support their ideas dead (see James Hodgkinson) (even if they keep their power levels low in public). Now the same people that railed against the Second Amendment, gun rights and have called for gun control for decades are now arming up to go against those who just simply disagree with them. LOL
>>59
Nice try, fam.
>>60
Whomst'd've are you quoting, messteezoe?