Does Pure Capitalism Invariably And Inevitably Lead To "Crony Capitalism" And Corporatism?

[mbewane]

Thats NOT what I said.

I said that ON PAPER, people can enact the same changes using another set of assets...but its innately harder to persuade people if you don't leverage certain assets, which are not always monetary


there have been plenty of non-monied revolutions. You're missing my argument


I'm not an authoritarian...not to that extent. But I don't think direct democracy is particularly beneficial at ALL levels of government i.e. the President. Direct democracy for more local politicians is something I'm cool with. some positions are too important to give people a direct say in certain positions that encompass more than what insular perspectives value.

Its like saying you want Generals to be elected

On the first point we do agree then : it is indeed easier for people with assets to persuade people. It would great if everyone had the same possibility to access said assets, but we both know that's not how it works in the real world, hence a small percentage of people having much more leverage than the majority of any given country. Thus, rich people having more of a say than poor people (because of their money and/or influence), which contradicts the idea of democracy.

I wasn't talking about revloutions, but everyday governing. But if I'm missing your argument please clarify.

So we can at least agree that direct democracy is good at a certain level, as a valid alternative to current representative democracy. It's all a matter of degree then.

Technically, generals work for the Government. I'm not talking about directly voting for employees, but for people who are actually in command. A General follows orders, he's not the one deciding to go to war.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

On the first point we do agree then : it is indeed easier for people with assets to persuade people. It would great if everyone had the same possibility to access said assets, but we both know that's not how it works in the real world, hence a small percentage of people having much more leverage than the majority of any given country. Thus, rich people having more of a say than poor people (because of their money and/or influence), which contradicts the idea of democracy..

SOMEWHAT. Poor people just have to collectivize and confront an issue with whatever resources they have OR enable a proxy spokesperson or enabler. Theres more ways to make a point than money.

I wasn't talking about revloutions, but everyday governing. But if I'm missing your argument please clarify.

ON SOME LEVEL, people with more at risk or more leverage always get what they want since they end up having more pull in the lives of others rather than a single complaint.

So we can at least agree that direct democracy is good at a certain level, as a valid alternative to current representative democracy. It's all a matter of degree then.

What do you mean? Representative democracy is what we have. I'm saying that direct democracy is only even useful on a certain scale, not even addressing how beneficial it is beyond that.

Technically, generals work for the Government. I'm not talking about directly voting for employees, but for people who are actually in command. A General follows orders, he's not the one deciding to go to war

i'm ok with representative democracy.

I think ya'll underestimate the sheer stupidity, ignorance, and general misudnerstanding that exists in the average citizen

 

[DEAD7]

So basically your political program consists of trying to get everyone to agree to keep the state as small as possible... and trust that everyone will work to keep it that way?

No, the size/reach of the state should be restricted by law, and diligently maintained. In essence what The Constitution aimed to do.

...and a lack of trust in man is the basis for the restriction(s) on govt.

 

[JahFocus CS]

No, the size/reach of the state should be restricted by law, and diligently maintained. In essence what The Constitution aimed to do.

...and a lack of trust in man is the basis for the restriction(s) on govt.

"restricted by law" (laws can be repealed...)
"diligently maintained" (exceedingly vague... how would it be maintained?)

Do you believe government has a natural tendency to expand? You are relying on the government to restrict itself?

"in essence, what the Constitution aimed to do" -- we have the Constitution now and it produced the current system we have. What should be done differently?

 

[DEAD7]

"restricted by law" (laws can be repealed...)
"diligently maintained" (exceedingly vague... how would it be maintained?)
"in essence, what the Constitution aimed to do" -- we have the Constitution now and it produced the current system we have. What should be done differently?

Do you believe government has a natural tendency to expand? You are relying on the government to restrict itself?

Absolutely, in fact I'd go as far as to say societies have a natural slide towards socialism.
edit: towards communism* not socialism. @JahFocus CS Since we are defining these terms.

Spoiler

Power always seeks to grow, and it always corrupts IMHO

 

[JahFocus CS]

Absolutely, in fact I'd go as far as to say societies have a natural slide towards socialism.

So socialism is natural now?

You're saying it takes some active force to repress that tendency?






My nikka.

 

[CHL]

You have me mistaken as your capitalist analog, thinking that strict and complete adherence to an economic theory will right all wrongs. I have NEVER advocated for pure capitalism, or pure ANYTHING for that matter. In fact I have called people who think pure theories are the solution to be idiots. That shyt is the height of intellectual laziness. Why think critically? Just refer anyone who disagrees to Marxist texts and save everyone the back and forth.

No I will repeat pure capitalism is not an ideal I think we should strive for. I think it, like socialism, has ELEMENTS we can pick and choose to create a practical system that makes sense in real life. Stop being so lazy and binary in your economic viewpoints smh

When did I say you were a pure capitalist? I'm fully aware you're somewhere centre right. Reading comprehension is key.

 

[acri1]

because that gives individuals or the public the power to make laws to regulate corporations

Soon as that happens you'd be screaming about "Socialism" or "Marxism".

 

[Tate]

No, the size/reach of the state should be restricted by law, and diligently maintained. In essence what The Constitution aimed to do.

...and a lack of trust in man is the basis for the restriction(s) on govt.

We both agree that the the U.S. constitution was written in pre-libertarian/classical liberal mindset, however it has clearly not been that large of a deterrent against the encroachment of government into the market.

Do you think it's possible to develop such a document that would be ironclad in separation of market from state? Any thoughts on how?

 

[theworldismine13]

Soon as that happens you'd be screaming about "Socialism" or "Marxism".

well it depends one the details

 

[mbewane]

SOMEWHAT. Poor people just have to collectivize and confront an issue with whatever resources they have OR enable a proxy spokesperson or enabler. Theres more ways to make a point than money.

ON SOME LEVEL, people with more at risk or more leverage always get what they want since they end up having more pull in the lives of others rather than a single complaint.

What do you mean? Representative democracy is what we have. I'm saying that direct democracy is only even useful on a certain scale, not even addressing how beneficial it is beyond that.

i'm ok with representative democracy.

I think ya'll underestimate the sheer stupidity, ignorance, and general misudnerstanding that exists in the average citizen

"Poor people just have to collectivize" is terribly condescending breh. That's basically saying "Well if they don't get their voice heard, it's their fault", which is just another variant of "Poor people are in their position because they choose to be", a neo-liberal mantra. You know damn right even 50000 organized poor people will NEVER have as much access as the CEO of Walmart or one random billionaire, let's not be naive here. Poor people ain't paying for no one's campaign.

Listen, all your argument is "Rich people should have more of a say than poor people". It's a form of aristocracy really, but we keep trying to convince ourselves otherwise. Just read an article in Le Monde Diplomatique on how EU policies are shaped by big industries, shyt is terrible.

Still, no need to elect a general, who obeys to orders. The thing is that using the supposed or verified stupidty and ignorance of citizens as a reason not to give them more power is a self-fulfilling prophecy, since the ones that could educate better the population - the government - are the ones that would lose power if they actually went that route. Of course if you don't give education and info to the population they will be stupid and ignorant, but it's the government's job to do so, people are not stupid and ignorant by nature. The whole refugees crisis in Europe shows us just that : people have no idea whatsoever what they're talking about, because they are fed biased bullshyt all day long. But people who ARE informed tend to have vastly different views than those who aren't.

People can be educated and informed, that's something that is far from impossible. shyt we're here sending people into space and y'all are invading countries, you're telling me you can't train teachers and give them material? It's all about priorities.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

When did I say you were a pure capitalist? I'm fully aware you're somewhere centre right. Reading comprehension is key.

You said it in the first post, claiming that there is some 'ideal capitalism' I want to see implemented. I believe in private property and an economic system that rewards effort and innovation, but I also believe in a big safety net and that the govt should equalize and maximize opportunities for individuals within its power. Hardly the dog eat dog royal rumble that is capitalist theory.

No matter how much you try and intellectualize collectivism or shame those who disagree with it, you will never make a legit case for it because it just doesn't make sense.

 

[DEAD7]

So socialism is natural now?

You're saying it takes some active force to repress that tendency?






My nikka.

Sure, but that doesn't make it the most effective means of allocating scarce resources(with alternative uses).

 

[DEAD7]

I haven't thought it through but ill throw it out there to see what comes back but it seems like the discussion is centering around socialism being whats "right" and capitalism being whats "best".
Right, being digestible by bleeding hearts
Best, being most efficient in generating wealth and increasing quality of life for all.

 

[DEAD7]

We both agree that the the U.S. constitution was written in pre-libertarian/classical liberal mindset, however it has clearly not been that large of a deterrent against the encroachment of government into the market.

Do you think it's possible to develop such a document that would be ironclad in separation of market from state? Any thoughts on how?

Alone, no. The people must be diligent in maintaining the restraint(s)... which means well informed.

Problem is the entity we are seeking to limit and keep under control is the one educating and informing us
Shocker, it's teaching us that growing its power is good.