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

[Misanthrope]

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.

Capitalism isn't meant to increase the quality of life for all. Capitalism is meant to make profit, period. If there is a profit to be made in a product that improves someone's life, capitalists will make the product. If there's no profit, then the product dies.

The mixed economy / safety net, should be used to ensure that most people get to partake of the life-improving items that capital produces. I don't think myself, or anyone else in this thread advocated for true state socialism.

Since we're throwing out wild statements...
Do you think our current economic system is actually the worst possible blend of capitalism and socialism possible? I don't think a more capitalist system would be good for most people [especially coming from the perspective of a person on a site that caters to the racial group with the least capital], but at least it lets failures fail. And I don't think a more socialist system requires more taxes to work, it requires us taxing people fairly across the board, and a shift away from the wasteful spending we've done.

Right now it seems like we have the worst of both worlds, high tax - low return.

 

[DEAD7]

Capitalism isn't meant to increase the quality of life for all. Capitalism is meant to make profit, period. If there is a profit to be made in a product that improves someone's life, capitalists will make the product. If there's no profit, then the product dies.

The mixed economy / safety net, should be used to ensure that most people get to partake of the life-improving items that capital produces. I don't think myself, or anyone else in this thread advocated for true state socialism.

Since we're throwing out wild statements...
Do you think our current economic system is actually the worst possible blend of capitalism and socialism possible? I don't think a more capitalist system would be good for most people [especially coming from the perspective of a person on a site that caters to the racial group with the least capital], but at least it lets failures fail. And I don't think a more socialist system requires more taxes to work, it requires us taxing people fairly across the board, and a shift away from the wasteful spending we've done.

Right now it seems like we have the worst of both worlds, high tax - low return.

Capitalism generates the wealth that makes these safety nets possible. Making the increase in quality of life a byproduct(intentional or not) of capitalism.


... and no i dont think this is the worst possible blend. I think its just an extremely bloated, inefficient and purposely top heavy blend.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

So socialism is natural now?

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






My nikka.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

"Poor people just have to collectivize" is terribly condescending breh.

How? Is that not what has to happen?

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.

Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that those with more at stake have more to say GENERALLY. Not on all issues and i'm not issuing a blanket statement. A billionaire doesn't get to talk about sentencing of murders the same way he does about how much he thinks his company should pay for on behalf of his employees.

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.

You're putting words in my mouth.

I said that there are more ways than not to get your message across, but saying money doesn't or should never matter is flat out wrong. Politicians respond to things that are mutually beneficial. You can't always rely on moralizing and emotional arguments to come to back you up.

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.

I don't know what you were getting at his. Kinda rambled.

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.

I'm ALL for education reform. All for it. In fact, i don't really think the private industry should have as much control over education as it currently does.

 

[JahFocus CS]

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.

I am not making a moralistic argument at all so I disagree. I'm not arguing that socialism is "right," I always say that it is in the material self-interest of the working class to end the exploitation of its labor. Big difference between material self-interest and appealing to platitudes. This isn't to say that there isn't also an element of human dignity, justice, etc., involved, but that is neither the mechanism for overcoming capitalism nor sufficient motivation.

If the working class prefers the accumulation of capital in the hands of the bourgeoisie and is content to fight for scraps every 30-40 years after its gains are rolled back, well, okay. There is a lot of human (not to mention environmental) suffering - and workers will bear 99% of the brunt of it - that will result as long as production is not democratically undertaken and distributed.

Capitalism generates the wealth that makes these safety nets possible. Making the increase in quality of life a byproduct(intentional or not) of capitalism.


... and no i dont think this is the worst possible blend. I think its just an extremely bloated, inefficient and purposely top heavy blend.

Labor generates the wealth that makes safety nets possible, and the safety nets are a means of returning to the working class a sliver of the surplus taken from it during the production process.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Socialism is not necessarily incompatible with markets. Market socialism is an option as the productive forces of society continue to be built up.

 

[OsO]

No, the size/reach of the state should be restricted by law, and diligently maintained.

Who is doing the restricting and maintaining? The populace? If so how is the populace organized to make decisions?

And who is regulating the private sector?

I can't see corporations playing nice just because...

 

[NERO]

Yes. Now get back to the kangaroo fukkin ya c*nt.

 

[CHL]

Yes. Now get back to the kangaroo fukkin ya c*nt.

Are you always this mad IRL when you aren't a pathetic little keyboard warrior?

 

[DEAD7]

Labor generates the wealth that makes safety nets possible, and the safety nets are a means of returning to the working class a sliver of the surplus taken from it during the production process.

...do I really want to open the labor door? hmmmmmmm

 

[DEAD7]

1)Who is doing the restricting and maintaining? The populace? If so how is the populace organized to make decisions?

2)And who is regulating the private sector?

I can't see corporations playing nice just because...

1) a well informed populace.


2)No one...

 

[JahFocus CS]

...do I really want to open the labor door? hmmmmmmm

No. You don't.

 

[NERO]

Are you always this mad IRL when you aren't a pathetic little keyboard warrior?

it's just banter ya c*nt.

 

[CHL]

it's just banter ya c*nt.

Stop arkin up ya muppet c*nt, mate

 

[Brown_Pride]

Nope. It doesn't have to at least. Capitalism exists in a system. The system, if strong enough, should be able to resist capitalism. I think it's more apt to say that capitalism will always TRY to devolve into corporatism unless it is checked.

Can you imagine if people actually gave a fuk? THAT would counter that croney capitalism real quick.