211–220 of 230 posts
The premises of the article is that the free market is to cruel for a democracy and that when it demands a sacrifice to greate people will tend to vote for populists
There is nothing in the article concerning corruption or propoganda.
Simple answer: No. More nuanced answer: not exactly. Not Capitalism per-se anyway. But clearly you can see an unhealthy degree of commingling of big government and big business, in a way that is damaging to society at large. But to my mind: a. that's corruption, not capitalism b. that's an argument against big government, not an argument against capitalism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
imo, capitalism leads to oligopoly. oligopoly leads to corruption. Capitalism can only ends with corrupted states imo.
That is just old marxist economics that has been disproven. Economists agree that markets do not automatically lead to oligopoly. This is why Marx has no credibilty in economics. All his predictions turned out to be false not because 'economists are the hand maidens of capital' as leftist like to claim. In fact Marx economics was very popular amoung economist at one point, it was then deconstructed theortically and d…
Simple answer: No. More nuanced answer: not exactly. Not Capitalism per-se anyway. But clearly you can see an unhealthy degree of commingling of big government and big business, in a way that is damaging to society at large. But to my mind: a. that's corruption, not capitalism b. that's an argument against big government, not an argument against capitalism
Capitalism as a social framework that “looks” like what we know wasn’t a thing until the mid-1800s 150+ years of “guidance” by experts, stewards of industry, and government making claims of operating roughly along that framework And this is where we are Humans are the problem with every social system they have built. Humans bring it down because humans get sick of propping up the dead past These silly abstractions re…
No one will ever be able to look at our network of interactions and create a perfect pattern with a social ideology. But we need a social system so that we can attach to it rules that fulfill our needs like self-preservation or even just hunger and companionship. We could do better for ourselves if we fit the social system to fit these needs and not the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those who have power can freely take wealth e.g. taxation but those who have wealth cannot freely take power. Corrupt politicians might treat power as a free market commodity; but that's still corruption and not a market.
> Corrupt politicians might treat power as a free market commodity; but that's still corruption and not a market. A might treat B as a market commodity, but that's not a market. What does make a market then, if not having commodities in a market?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>b. that's an argument against big government, not an argument against capitalism A government that is not large enough to upset an even playing field will also not be large enough to level an uneven playing field.
This argument seems to subtly imply that the only efficacious means to "level an uneven playing field" is government regulation, and not some other, non-government process such as boycotts. Government regulation is, ultimately, only one item in the civic toolbox of society. If it turns out this is flawed, and will in the long run generate more negative outcomes than positive ones, abandoning the tool does not mean ab…
If you have strong enough coordination, we end up calling it "government".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that to be at all fair we should treat the side-effects of capitalism as capitalism, just as we treat the side-effects of communism as communism. When we see that communist regimes have famines and vast imprisonments and corrupt party leaders stealing from the people, we correctly identify that as one of the realities of communism which stems from the impossibility of making communism work within the confines…
When it's the inevitable effects of capitalism, we deny it I haven't seen any proof that there are any "inevitable" effects of capitalism. Certainly we can't take the existence of these effects that you are referring to as a given.
I feel like once again you're using different standards for evidence for the two systems. We see the awful effects of communism each and every time and we correctly attribute it to communism. But suddenly there's a need for negative proof with capitalism. We can't be sure because we haven't seen every single permutation where it might be possible. But this systemic corruption exist in each real instance so far. But we don't know if it's strictly "inevitable." Do you see how that is bad reasoning? Do you see how that isn't falsifiable?
It also stands to reason that this is inherent in capitalism. If you have complete freedom to purchase anything in the market, can you not see a situation where, without outside control, a successful party will have the opportunity to use capital to seize the system itself and change it to suit their needs above others? It stops being lassis-faire at that point. What about capitalism is meant to prevent that from happening? There's no inherent safeguard to keep it from developing that problem.
If you want a good system, you have to look at it honestly. You can't be in denial and keep giving it a benefit of a doubt just to protect the system instead of the people living within it. The system exists for a purpose, not of its own merit. It needs modification in the same way that all systems need modification. Any creation of humankind can be improved, and one of the advantages of our kind is that we have reason and agency to continually improve. The danger lies in ossifying and exalting a system as flawless the way we do with capitalism.
Why do so many people put democracy on a pedestal? Majority rules scares the shit out of me. We don't need what the majority wants. We need protection for minorities. The greatest minority being the individual. So long as a person isn't physically harming others leave them alone and let them be. Mobocracy, a majority without limits, is worse than a relatively steady and stable dictator.
No, but greed is.
Can you even have capitalism without greed? Greed is just a pejorative term for self-interest, which is a core assumption in the treatise of capitalism. It can't exist without it. It just needs to be limited. You can't have lassis-faire capitalism forever because the people who are most successful will change the initial conditions and it will no longer be lassis-faire. So you need some kind of control outside the fr…
Greed is a correctly pejorative term for pursuing power and wealth beyond what people actually need to live well enough. Self-interest prior to reaching that point is not greed.
Capitalism is defined as private ownership of means of production and core resources. It doesn't inherently require greed.
I agree with your second paragraph, btw.
Imperialism has feudals,communism has party members, totalitarianism has oligarchs (and friends of the leadership) where as democracy has the 1% and their cronies.
Corruption is not an ideology but a moral and ethical failure. One can maintain an uncorrupt conscious a character of integrity (when it comes to politics at least) regardless of the system of government.
Money,power and a sense of security are all deceptively corrupting vices. Corruption is prevalent in any government that tolerates people who have failed to overcome those vices as politicians and public officials.
It's not capitalism or lack of it that is corrupting but rather a society that tolerates what it knows to be vile and filth in exchange for a bigger picture or in pessimistic complacency towards the ruling class.