The prevalence of the first comment (looking at you peter theil) made me a socialist. If the capitalists themselves dont believe its compatible with demoracy, its not compatible.
It was the second comment that did it for me. I grew up knowing the people who believed in money above all else were evil, but seeing how the “good guys” kept kowtowing to the “bad guys” made me realize they are all bad and the only solution is to dismantle capitalism.
There must be a well defined, stratified, social hierarchy, and this system also must be morality itself.
This is what all conservatives believe and hold most dear… it does not matter that they are often too stupid to consciously realize this about themselves.
Their swollen amygdalas are terrified of uncertainty and the unknown, and a world that doesn’t follow a fairly simple set of rigid, universal rules is essentially an apocalypse to them.
All that has changed in the last ~250 years is that democracy became normalized by way of violent revolts demanding it, or the powers that were acquiesing to reforms and limitations of their own power… so as to avoid a violent revolt.
This allowed capitalism to arise… initially it appeared to, or at least rhetorically presented itself as offering a more democratic approach to conducting an economy… but it has enough fundamental flaws that it guarantees the recreation of a stratified hierarchichal society.
Now, capitalism has fully captured most of the governments and much of the population of the West… and the Western Conservative is a-ok with this: Capitalism offers its own social castes, rules, morality system, and has the coherent power to be able to enforce these.
Democracy is a just… a vestigial element of society, to a modern Conservative. Ancient, outmoded, optional. So long as the hierachy exists, and can perpetuate itself, of what use is allowing a potential for disruption?
Maybe it is, but they’re definitely at odds regarding the structure of society.
The core principle of democracy is equality: every person gets one vote, law applies to everyone equally, and so on.
Capitalism tends towards a pyramidal form, with few rich people at the top and masses of poor people at the bottom.
With checks and balances you can try to flatten the pyramid a bit and make it viable, sure. But there’s always the risk of moving from democracy to something whose structure aligns with the capitalist pyramids, which we usually call fascism.
These pressures arise due to desire for profits, as well as the tendency for citizens to feel a lack of agency when they dont control their economic freedom, and therefore voting for the trumps of the world.
We could try regulation again, but thats what FDR did, and look where we are.
As much as economists like to pretend, capitalism is not a political system. The goal is exploitation because we choose so. As a society we could just as easily choose to make our goal the maximal fulfillment of the needs of the public. All that takes is preventing those without a personal concept of “enough” from controlling capital.
That’s just not possible when you factor in both accumulation of wealth (it’s exponential like compound interest) and the competition between capitalists for profit. The competition does not come from their moral beliefs but from the incentives created by the system itself.
All that takes is preventing those without a personal concept of “enough” from controlling capital.
This would require to remove capital from the hands of individuals and either throw it in the hands of the state, or change its (corporate) ownership to co-op model (one worker - one vote). Both have been shown to work but that would no longer be capitalism but instead a form of socialism, as private capital would no longer dictate what’s produced in the economy and how it’s distributed. Instead it would be dictated by the state which is controlled by the people through some form of democracy, or democratically by the workers within each corporation, or both. In both cases what’s produced is dictated by the needs of the majority of the workers in that state. And that’s textbook socialism.
Capitalism is an exploitation system. It will exploitation what it needs to, to ensure it continues. If that is policies then it will do so. Preventing those without the concept of enough from controlling capital is an an uphill battle. Easier said than done
you’re a fucking idiot if you think they’re what capitalism means. democracy implies the common man has voting rights. capitalism means that the market determines the value of every product
Capitalism doesn’t have a monopoly over the idea of exchanging goods and services. It’s all about accumulation of wealth and will pursue it endlessly because it has no endgame. Union busting; laying off 8,000 employees on leave (Meta); appeasing shareholders over the customers that made them wealthy; burying us all in AI slop.
Man, the amount of people that think capitalism is a system of money exchange almost seems like one of the major issues somehow, as if people are afraid that they won’t be able to afford things, because there won’t be money. Neglecting that they already can’t afford things, because capitalism is a parasite that kills the host, not because tokens of value can exist outside that perversion.
A free market is often (not necessarily) a characteristic of capitalism, but it’s not what makes a system capitalist. Capitalism is specifically when the means of production (the “capital”) are privately owned (by a single “capitalist” or a group of shareholder capitalists).
This is opposed to socialism where the working class owns the means of production. Socialism vs capitalism basically comes down to who owns the mills and factories , the people who work there or some fat cat on a yacht somewhere? You can Google it for better explanations than I can give.
The prevalence of the first comment (looking at you peter theil) made me a socialist. If the capitalists themselves dont believe its compatible with demoracy, its not compatible.
It was the second comment that did it for me. I grew up knowing the people who believed in money above all else were evil, but seeing how the “good guys” kept kowtowing to the “bad guys” made me realize they are all bad and the only solution is to dismantle capitalism.
Grew up around both. Ended up an anarchist
Conservatism is still conservatism.
There must be a well defined, stratified, social hierarchy, and this system also must be morality itself.
This is what all conservatives believe and hold most dear… it does not matter that they are often too stupid to consciously realize this about themselves.
Their swollen amygdalas are terrified of uncertainty and the unknown, and a world that doesn’t follow a fairly simple set of rigid, universal rules is essentially an apocalypse to them.
All that has changed in the last ~250 years is that democracy became normalized by way of violent revolts demanding it, or the powers that were acquiesing to reforms and limitations of their own power… so as to avoid a violent revolt.
This allowed capitalism to arise… initially it appeared to, or at least rhetorically presented itself as offering a more democratic approach to conducting an economy… but it has enough fundamental flaws that it guarantees the recreation of a stratified hierarchichal society.
Now, capitalism has fully captured most of the governments and much of the population of the West… and the Western Conservative is a-ok with this: Capitalism offers its own social castes, rules, morality system, and has the coherent power to be able to enforce these.
Democracy is a just… a vestigial element of society, to a modern Conservative. Ancient, outmoded, optional. So long as the hierachy exists, and can perpetuate itself, of what use is allowing a potential for disruption?
capitalism is compatible with democracy
Maybe it is, but they’re definitely at odds regarding the structure of society.
The core principle of democracy is equality: every person gets one vote, law applies to everyone equally, and so on.
Capitalism tends towards a pyramidal form, with few rich people at the top and masses of poor people at the bottom.
With checks and balances you can try to flatten the pyramid a bit and make it viable, sure. But there’s always the risk of moving from democracy to something whose structure aligns with the capitalist pyramids, which we usually call fascism.
In the same way licking the elephants foot is compatible with life, yeah.
In the long term, I don’t believe it is.
The pressure from capitalism to:
These pressures arise due to desire for profits, as well as the tendency for citizens to feel a lack of agency when they dont control their economic freedom, and therefore voting for the trumps of the world.
We could try regulation again, but thats what FDR did, and look where we are.
When money is power, votes mean nothing.
No not really. Capitalism seeks to exploit, it will exploit democracy (see:the world)
As much as economists like to pretend, capitalism is not a political system. The goal is exploitation because we choose so. As a society we could just as easily choose to make our goal the maximal fulfillment of the needs of the public. All that takes is preventing those without a personal concept of “enough” from controlling capital.
That’s just not possible when you factor in both accumulation of wealth (it’s exponential like compound interest) and the competition between capitalists for profit. The competition does not come from their moral beliefs but from the incentives created by the system itself.
This would require to remove capital from the hands of individuals and either throw it in the hands of the state, or change its (corporate) ownership to co-op model (one worker - one vote). Both have been shown to work but that would no longer be capitalism but instead a form of socialism, as private capital would no longer dictate what’s produced in the economy and how it’s distributed. Instead it would be dictated by the state which is controlled by the people through some form of democracy, or democratically by the workers within each corporation, or both. In both cases what’s produced is dictated by the needs of the majority of the workers in that state. And that’s textbook socialism.
How to make a cluekess dude read Marx? It’s baffling that we have to answer the same questions again and again.
Capitalism is an exploitation system. It will exploitation what it needs to, to ensure it continues. If that is policies then it will do so. Preventing those without the concept of enough from controlling capital is an an uphill battle. Easier said than done
Not if you make greed a capital offense (pun intended).
Sure but who will enforce that what is defined as greed? It gets very muddy
you’re a fucking idiot if you think they’re what capitalism means. democracy implies the common man has voting rights. capitalism means that the market determines the value of every product
Capitalism doesn’t have a monopoly over the idea of exchanging goods and services. It’s all about accumulation of wealth and will pursue it endlessly because it has no endgame. Union busting; laying off 8,000 employees on leave (Meta); appeasing shareholders over the customers that made them wealthy; burying us all in AI slop.
Man, the amount of people that think capitalism is a system of money exchange almost seems like one of the major issues somehow, as if people are afraid that they won’t be able to afford things, because there won’t be money. Neglecting that they already can’t afford things, because capitalism is a parasite that kills the host, not because tokens of value can exist outside that perversion.
That’s not what capitalism means. Nice projection though!
markets dictating the market is exactly what capitalism means
A free market is often (not necessarily) a characteristic of capitalism, but it’s not what makes a system capitalist. Capitalism is specifically when the means of production (the “capital”) are privately owned (by a single “capitalist” or a group of shareholder capitalists).
This is opposed to socialism where the working class owns the means of production. Socialism vs capitalism basically comes down to who owns the mills and factories , the people who work there or some fat cat on a yacht somewhere? You can Google it for better explanations than I can give.
Maybe you should try a cursory internet check for the definition first
if I’m then explain
Really? How come the “free market” fails entirely without regulation?