You're viewing a single thread.
It's not really capitalism anymore when the government keeps bailing out businesses that are supposed to fail.
This happens when capital owners get enough wealth and influence to capture government regulatory agencies. This is what any attempt at capitalism will build to.
At least the no true communism people use the actual definition of the system in their argument. What you’re describing is literally capitalist organizations acting on the incentives inherent to the system.
You're being ridiculous. Greed is the "inherent incentive" that leads to regulatory rapture under capitalism and authoritarianism under communism (which one could argue to be the same thing in essence).
The solution is a government of the people, for the people, a.k.a. democracy. Which can choose whichever economic system it damn well pleases, as long as it keeps greed in check through taxation, public services, strong welfare, social discourse, etc. Like social-democratic countries in Europe have been doing for decades. Or try a version of that for communism, I don't care.
Even so, those countries in Europe are still capitalist. They've just tempered it with government policies that restrain it to adequate levels.
In that sense I suppose "this is the least worst system" isn't technically true. Unbridled capitalism from the industrial revolution is incredibly different from restrained European capitalism after all.
I did not say, nor do I think, that capitalism is "the least worst system". I'm sure we could do better in many regards, but that's quite irrelevant to the point anyway.
America's version of capitalism isn't the only cannon version of capitalism (and I could write a whole-ass essay about how the current state of affairs in the US goes back decades, and is fundamentally unfixable due to the federal nature of the country with its urban/rural divide mixed in with Electoral College and FPTP voting essentially preventing any meaningful structural reform).
There's no need to dismiss neoliberal social-democracy, just because it's "different" from the mess that America got itself into. Europe's achievements stand on their own, and America's systemic failures being blamed on "muh capitalism" completely misses the point, and the actual root cause of the democratic back-sliding which is corrupting the system in favor of the elites.
I completely agree actually. Blaming it on capitalism is reductive and masks the actual root causes, and what sort of solutions we need.
And then when capitalists turn news into an entertainment business you’ll vote for their victory while thinking you’re a populist.
Your solution requires a fair playing field, especially with information and people with wealth and power will work to limit that info. Fox News and it’s ever expanding right wing influence sphere show how much money there is in convincing the average voter to vote to further empower the capital class.
You equate the two but I don’t think you actually understand the fundamental core of these ideas. In capitalism, gathering wealth is the basic core foundation of the system. The hierarchy is spelled out and requires a vast underclass who prop up the lifestyles of those on top with their labor. In communism, the fundamental idea is that hierarchy should be dismantled. The system that was initially labeled communism was described as stateless, classless, and moneyless.
Corrupt individuals can turn literally any government into authoritarianism if given the chance, that’s not inherent to communist ideology. Especially when you consider all the dictators the US has cozied up to for natural resources and such. When billionaires say “we coup who we want” you can’t single communism out for creating authoritarian institutions. It shows a lack of perspective.
Lol dude, this is what happens to virtually every major system. It's just corruption, plain and simple.
Only if you sand off the details. The corruption here is directly incentivized as a way to become more successful in the system. Its incentivized to a much larger degree than any other system based on where power is derived from.
Yeah, ok sure.
Yeah it's called corruption. I think no matter how perfect your ideals are in your head, any idea can be ruined with a little corruption.
Which is why every authoritarian system of government leads to disaster. The fewer people are at the top, the easier it is for that corruption to take hold.
i definitely agree, easy accumulation of power in any system will lead to authoritarianism.
without strong protections, capitalism will inevitably lead to a small number of people holding most of the money (and therefore, the power).
those trying to grow massive amounts of capital do not want competition, they do not want a "fair market". they want monopoly and control and they have the money to bribe and pay their way into more of it.
they will leverage their money to their benefit and to the detriment of everyone else. this wouldn't be as bad if wealth disparity wasn't insane, but some people literally have the money to move mountains. they will buy competition just to kill it, they will lobby the government to reduce regulations on pollution and labor to lower their costs, they will pay politicians to change voting districts to make it ever harder to change the status quo, they will do whatever it takes to protect and grow their power. and in a system where money is power, their existing hoard of money all but guarantees their success.
this is also authoritarianism, just hidden by the veil of "the free market".
I actually don't disagree with anything you've said. Any one ideology will end up stagnating. We see that totally free market is a mess and creates its own ruling class with its own form of oppression. Personally I think we need a flavor of capitalism where the rules that are supposed to prevent monopolies are actually enforced. Make FTC do it's job. No bailouts, no lobbying, strict rules about campaign financing. Add universal healthcare and term limits for every government position and I think we'd be golden. We would need to keep an eye on regulatory capture.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing capitalism or socialism.
Libya was doing pretty well under Gaddafi… it’s much worse in every way now that there is more than one dude at the top lmao
I wouldn't say "pretty well" unless you add "relative to now"
Hum… wouldn’t you like to live in a country that when you turn 18 you win a brand new car from the government? A free house? Don’t have to pay any bills? Free higher education? And after graduating if you can’t find a job the government gave you an average salary every month until you did find one? If you needed medical treatment that wasn’t available in your country, your government flew you to and paid for your treatment wherever it was available?
What the fuck bullshit propaganda are you spreading rofl
Fucking tankies are hilarious
Sure, Libya was a paradise and the giant crowds of people who ass raped Gaddafi to death with a bayonet were all CIA plants
Gaddafi wasn’t a socialist or communist at all. I’m not a tankie either.
And man, I know it’s hard to believe, but all that I said is true. Libya has a shit ton of oil and minerals. Instead of having a corporation profit off of it, the state owned all of it and there was a very strong wealth distribution system.
But Gaddafi was crazy. And he clamped hard on religious extremists. Which yes we’re trained by the US to coup him. Y’know, as Hilary said “we came we saw he died?”…
Or you really think the Libyan “revolution” was completely natural and grassroots? Lmao
The revolution happened, then Gaddafi more down civilians with helicopters, then the UN authorized a joint task force to enforce a no-fly zone, then NATO did that in an operation actually led by France and not the US, then he was killed, then Clinton said that.
That is the correct order of events.
That's how capitalism has always worked in practice, though.
Well it's an interesting idea on paper anyway
Of course it is. Capitalism, especially neoliberal capitalism, needs the state to support it. Without the state, who will arrest people who go against the wishes of capital? If there isn't one already, capital will become the state.
it is when the richest people have already paid off the government to bail them out, when the time comes, with our tax dollars.
The system wouldn't work without bailouts. It's a feature, not a bug.
neoliberal governance is an extension of capitalism, change my mind.
That is indeed still capitalism
No, that is corporate socialism.
Socialism is not when the government does things.
Its not? Every definition of socialism I've ever heard of is exactly that.
For instance:
"Socialism is, broadly speaking, a political and economic system in which property and the means of production are owned in common, typically controlled by the state or government."
What's your definition?
That is not what those words mean.
Permanently Deleted
Do you want the explanation?