Earlier this month we noted how Disney and ESPN had sued Sling TV for the cardinal sin of actually trying to innovate. Sling TV’s offense: releasing new, more convenient day, weekend, or week-long shorter term streaming subscriptions that provided an affordable way to watch live television.
These mini-subscriptions, starting at around $5, have already proven to be pretty popular. But, of course, it challenges the traditional cable TV model of getting folks locked into recurring (and expensive) monthly subscriptions. Subscriptions that often mandate that you include sports programming many people simply don’t want to pay for.
So of course Time Warner has now filed a second lawsuit (sealed, 1:25-mc-00381) accusing Dish Network of breach of contract. In the complaint, Warner Bros lawyer David Yohai argues that this kind of convenience simply cannot be allowed.
These two points seem both contradictory, as well as inaccurate to me.
Feudalism is “a combination of legal, economic, military, cultural, and political customs (…)” Feudalism - Wikipedia
While capitalism is “an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit.” “In its modern form, [capitalism] can be traced to the emergence of agrarian capitalism and mercantilism in the early Renaissance, in city-states like Florence. Capital has existed incipiently on a small scale for centuries in the form of merchant, renting and lending activities and occasionally as small-scale industry with some wage labor.” Capitalism - Wikipedia
First of all, feudalism is a system encapsulating various parts of society, including the economy. Whereas capitalism is focused on the economy, but also affects other parts of society. Feudalism is by no means capitalist, as it’s an entirely different system that predates capitalism by centuries. Naturally, there are similiarities and, in the end, feudalism transitioned into capitalism.
However, that does not mean it’s the same system or that one is a feature of the other. These systems, or sets of customs and policies, change over time, adopting new policies and revising existing ones according to the changing world - that is a perfectly natural, as well as unavoidable process. Sometimes it may be difficult to tell precisely when a shift occured, kind of like what is happening in some European countries today. Although, using currently established definitions, we can separate the two.
This makes no sense to me. There’s nothing that inherently links democracy and capitalism. They are entirely different constructs. A democracy can exist without capitalism, just like a capitalist economy can exist without a democratic government. Furthermore, democracy predates capitalism by 2000 years at the very least.
Democracy “is a form of government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state.” “Democratic assemblies are as old as the human species and are found throughout human history (…)” “Under Cleisthenes, what is generally held as the first example of a type of democracy in the sixth-century BC (508–507 BC) was established in Athens.” Democracy - Wikipedia
Not necessarily. I’m not sure where this conclusion comes from. There are no requirements that have to be met in order for a society to transition from capitalism to a different economical system. And actually, as of right now, we do in fact have enough resources to meet the basic needs of every single person on the planet. Housing not yet, but it could be achieved soon.
This argument, usually coming from capitalists, is not only counter-intuitive, but also short-sighted. Broadly speaking, to solve a problem, the very first thing you need to do is acknowledge it. If you don’t acknowledge a problem, meaning it doesn’t ‘exist’, you won’t be able to solve it. Which is exactly why people are complaining about capitalism.
Then you may suggest which parts are the most problematic and propose improvements or solutions. At this stage capitalists will often say, like you, that there is nothing else, or that nothing else works or is proven, etc. Firstly, in the context of American capitalism specifically (as this is what the post is about), there are many existing, working and proven solutions to some of its problems. All you need to do is take a look at Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries.
Furthermore, socialism exists and, unlike what capitalists would have you believe, has been at the very least proven to work in limited capacity. That is, until it collapsed due to external sanctions or the leader being assassinated. I’d be curious to see what capitalists would say if we judged capitalism under similar circumstances.
All in all, we do have at least some improvements readily available for deployment. The problem is not that they don’t exist or are unrealistic. Keep in mind you’re not restricted to choosing either capitalism or socialism. You’re entirely free to mix and modify policies. Again - like in Europe, adopting socialist policies while fundamentally sticking to capitalism. Seems to work quite well, and there’s still room for improvement.
Well that’s too bad, because that means you don’t understand the fundamentals of capitalism, and how capitalism works with either democracy or other systems of governance.
Capitalism is very flexible, it’s all about the regulation and other economic policies by governments. The Scandinavian model is capitalistic, but emphasizes human values and not just profits.
What matters is the political balance between those, and in both cases capitalism is the proven best method we have yet. and mind you I am a traditional social democrat, meaning I am left of the Social Democratic party we have in Denmark.
I hate what stereotypical “capitalism” stands for, but the part about regulated free markets, is the best model that actually works yet.