Actually, I do. It has a definition, one that all of you seem eager to twist and reshape into whatever suits your narrative.
In reality, you’re the one who doesn’t understand it. You’re so far removed from the mechanics that you can’t even see what’s actually happening. Instead, you just blame “the system” and an amorphous blob of people you call “the rich.”
It’s the worst kind of idealism, screaming at windmills while pretending to have some enlightened grasp of “what’s really going on.”
You’re no different in rhetoric or philosophy from a MAGA supporter—just flipped to the opposite pole.
Yes, capitalism greatly expanded the scale and speed at which things could be produced. But how do you keep capitalism ‘real’ and prevent the issues you described in your first comment?
I don’t want to keep capitalism real I was simply using a expletive to emphasize the difference between what we think capitalism is or what was at some point to what it is now which is more like a corporate oligarchy.
I offer no real solutions because they’re impossible at the moment; to rid ourselves of capitalism we first have to get rid of scarcity to get rid of scarcity we need to resolve our energy issues and to do that we need to figure out a way for all the governments to cooperate with each other and to do that… so on and so on.
My analysis of our current capitalistic system was in detriment to it. A corporate oligarchy is inherently an evil system.
I do not support nor want capitalism to be our financial system as we are clearly moving backwards.
The fundamental problem with capitalism is that in most sectors, free competition is wasteful, and a monopoly or cartel is more efficient. So, in the absence of strong anti-monopoly laws - something anathema to capitalism - these sectors will end up dominated by one or a few players. And then they will vertically integrate, further shutting out any competitors.
Take carmaking. If we did not have tariffs, import regulations, subsidies for local manufacturing, etc. (all government interventions), BYD would have 90% of the world car market in a decade. They have the best batteries and the most efficient supply chain - the only constraint would be how quickly they can scale up manufacturing!
So either we accept some government regulations to protect capitalism from itself, or we nationalise the largest and most mature companies and run them for public welfare rather than profit. Social democracy, or socialism. These are the only ‘good’ ways out. The alternative is whatever horrors England had during the Industrial Revolution, and the collapse of our environment due to overexploitation.
Your critical analysis of capitalism is spot on. Monopoly is definitely more efficient than competition.
But your solution is incorrect. Socialism is not the answer. For one thing it still uses a monetary faith based currency system. And more importantly it’s literally never worked.
I’ll ask you what I ask everyone I encounter that attempts to support socialism: which socialist country past or present would you like to live in?
If this is true, then the only solution is to have strict anti-monopoly laws that give newcomers a level playing field, and powerful and impartial regulators to enforce these.
But I’m not even sure that socialism has never worked. The USSR moved more people out of poverty than any other country from around 1920 to 1950, and since then that position has gone to China. The USSR also industrialised a backwards country despite two world wars, and sent the first satellite, man and woman to space. China now leads the world in reforestation, the production of solar panels, batteries and high-speed rail (well, any manufacturing in fact), and quantity of scientific research. So there are facets where ‘socialism’, however mangled and compromised, can excel. If socialist policies (not full-scale revolutionary communism) can be done by a democratic government, there is no reason to think that the benefits would be even greater.
Monopolizing of certain productions, rabid financialization of the economy and extreme wealth agglomeration at the top, combined with rampant poverty at the bottom have been the go to in the US capitalism. There was only a relatively brief period in between, when the scare of communism forced the oligarchy to give some concessions before people get too angry.
No, what we have is capitalism. There has been no veering off course. You don’t know what capitalism is.
Actually, I do. It has a definition, one that all of you seem eager to twist and reshape into whatever suits your narrative.
In reality, you’re the one who doesn’t understand it. You’re so far removed from the mechanics that you can’t even see what’s actually happening. Instead, you just blame “the system” and an amorphous blob of people you call “the rich.”
It’s the worst kind of idealism, screaming at windmills while pretending to have some enlightened grasp of “what’s really going on.”
You’re no different in rhetoric or philosophy from a MAGA supporter—just flipped to the opposite pole.
Wow you really are lost.
Care to share it with the rest of the class?
Also, do you have any examples of this ‘real capitalism’? Or at least a plan to keep capitalism ‘real’?
Ownership of the means of production.
The history of the model T from ford.
Right
Yes, capitalism greatly expanded the scale and speed at which things could be produced. But how do you keep capitalism ‘real’ and prevent the issues you described in your first comment?
I don’t want to keep capitalism real I was simply using a expletive to emphasize the difference between what we think capitalism is or what was at some point to what it is now which is more like a corporate oligarchy.
I offer no real solutions because they’re impossible at the moment; to rid ourselves of capitalism we first have to get rid of scarcity to get rid of scarcity we need to resolve our energy issues and to do that we need to figure out a way for all the governments to cooperate with each other and to do that… so on and so on.
My analysis of our current capitalistic system was in detriment to it. A corporate oligarchy is inherently an evil system.
I do not support nor want capitalism to be our financial system as we are clearly moving backwards.
The fundamental problem with capitalism is that in most sectors, free competition is wasteful, and a monopoly or cartel is more efficient. So, in the absence of strong anti-monopoly laws - something anathema to capitalism - these sectors will end up dominated by one or a few players. And then they will vertically integrate, further shutting out any competitors.
Take carmaking. If we did not have tariffs, import regulations, subsidies for local manufacturing, etc. (all government interventions), BYD would have 90% of the world car market in a decade. They have the best batteries and the most efficient supply chain - the only constraint would be how quickly they can scale up manufacturing!
So either we accept some government regulations to protect capitalism from itself, or we nationalise the largest and most mature companies and run them for public welfare rather than profit. Social democracy, or socialism. These are the only ‘good’ ways out. The alternative is whatever horrors England had during the Industrial Revolution, and the collapse of our environment due to overexploitation.
Your critical analysis of capitalism is spot on. Monopoly is definitely more efficient than competition.
But your solution is incorrect. Socialism is not the answer. For one thing it still uses a monetary faith based currency system. And more importantly it’s literally never worked.
I’ll ask you what I ask everyone I encounter that attempts to support socialism: which socialist country past or present would you like to live in?
If this is true, then the only solution is to have strict anti-monopoly laws that give newcomers a level playing field, and powerful and impartial regulators to enforce these.
But I’m not even sure that socialism has never worked. The USSR moved more people out of poverty than any other country from around 1920 to 1950, and since then that position has gone to China. The USSR also industrialised a backwards country despite two world wars, and sent the first satellite, man and woman to space. China now leads the world in reforestation, the production of solar panels, batteries and high-speed rail (well, any manufacturing in fact), and quantity of scientific research. So there are facets where ‘socialism’, however mangled and compromised, can excel. If socialist policies (not full-scale revolutionary communism) can be done by a democratic government, there is no reason to think that the benefits would be even greater.
Oligarchy and capitalism are in no way incompatible.
One is a form of governance, one is an economic system.
That you would pose the notion of “we don’t have capitalism, we have oligarchy” shows that you don’t seem to know the definitions.
MAGA has a lot more to do with hate for others and retribution for perceived slights than any coherent take on policy.
Out of all the idealistic head in the clouds idiots under my original comment you by far take the cake you are alone on a pedestal of stupid.
You claim that I don’t know the definitions of capitalism and oligarchy when you can’t even use the words correctly.
If anything you have no clue what those words mean nor have you understood a single word that I said.
Capitalism and oligarchy are of course compatible which is why I called our current system of economics a corporate oligarchy.
Please don’t respond there is no way you can save yourself.
Your arrogance knows no bounds. Pathetic little person.
What about my comment made me seem idealistic? Or is this another word you don’t understand?
In what way did I use them incorrectly?
Of course I haven’t understood what you said, you defined capitalism as
Do you actually think this is a sensible response to that question?
It doesn’t even say who owns it. Those exact words can be used to define communism, if you change who the “owners” are.
Save myself from what? The stakes of this internet debate seem to be much higher for you than they are for me.
deleted by creator
What was my last statement to you on my comment?
You said you weren’t going to reply to me, and that mine was a gish gallop comment, claimed I wasn’t refuting your points, and then you deleted it.
Classic projection, I can see why you wanted to hide it.
No. This was what I said.
I deleted my previous responce because I thought you were someone else.
But please continue to be slick. You’re only digging your hole deeper.
Also I appreciate your missuse of the word projection which you clearly don’t understand the meaning of.
You accused me of doing things that you were doing. That’s projection. Or so you think it means something different?
Case in point. More projection.
Monopolizing of certain productions, rabid financialization of the economy and extreme wealth agglomeration at the top, combined with rampant poverty at the bottom have been the go to in the US capitalism. There was only a relatively brief period in between, when the scare of communism forced the oligarchy to give some concessions before people get too angry.
Fully agree.