I don’t view capitalism as the primary cause, but more as the excuse. We don’t have free unfettered capitalism, there are price controls, labor regulations, every kind of distortion of capitalism: when it serves the agendas at play. When the agenda doesn’t care to protect a certain class, like diabetics with not much money, then the agenda lets capitalism run wild.
So, sure, blame capitalism - it’s what happens when you let people decide how much profit they want in combination with IP protections and monopoly markets. That way you don’t have to point the finger at a “communist” central planning committee that arbitrarily decided the price for something. In the end, it’s still people making decisions. As the song goes: when you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
So, we don’t actually have “capitalism” now, except where we decide to let it run rampant.
This particular example is a protected monopoly. When you let a protected monopoly loose combined with greedy actors, this is what happens. Doesn’t matter what umbrella you put over it, the fact is: they’ve got what other people need and there’s no competitor out there who isn’t colluding to keep the prices sky high.
We just watched a guy become a trillionaire and dump 200 million dollars into an election for the most powerful seat on the planet. But you don’t think the problem is capitalism???
Citizens United would be my first target. Campaign finance laws in general coming next. A big root cause lies in ownership of “the free press,” that one will be trickier, where does “news” stop and “entertainment” begin - and how would you ever regulate politics out of “entertainment” without impacting free speech? But, it’s important to address if you want to really reduce money’s influence in politics. Unfortunately, our legislators have been running the opposite direction for decades and the ballot box seems ineffective at convincing them to turn around.
Targeting capitalism, or communism, or pastafarianism, is pointless - they’re big fuzzy clouds that you can’t define, can’t contain.
The first 30 seconds are going down a very sensible path. It’s not our figureheads which “rule us” - it’s the people who put them in power. In theory it’s a democracy, in practice it’s a mish-mash where the opinions of the masses can be, and are, manipulated by those with the resources and inclination to do so.
Capitalism and communism very much have definitions, which are not actually practiced in anything resembling “pure form” anywhere on this planet in any society of more than a couple of thousand members in human history.
You might as well call our economic system a religion, like Pastafarianism, because what it actually is is a byzantine collection of laws and rules and regulations which have about as much to do with the “ideals” of either captialism or communism as your average US “Christian” Megachurch has to with the written teachings of Jesus.
You seem to just be using your own definitions of capitalism and communism. It’s probably not worth bickering much about, but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. Not in the way where I think you’re wrong and I disagree, in the way that your argument isn’t coherent enough to refute.
definitions of capitalism and communism. It’s probably not worth bickering much about
If anything, that’s my core point. Whatever definition you try to put on capitalism or communism, you won’t find it practiced like that. Our economies are dictated by legislation, executive orders, judicial decisions, corporate actions both inside and outside the law. Labels like capitalism and communism are more window dressing than actual function.
your argument isn’t coherent enough to refute.
Which is my position regarding people saying “this is capitalism.”
Labels like capitalism and communism are more window dressing than actual function
Nah fam. There’s no point in labeling sets of ideas if they’re rendered useless the moment they diverge from your imagined “pure” form. Being more complicated in practice than just a simple textbook definition doesn’t mean they aren’t “that” defined thing, it means textbook definitions are always fundamentally weak and flawed. Oversimplifications, models used to describe, not blueprints used to build.
Capitalism is roughly everywhere, underpinning everything globally because of its roaring success. Communism is roughly nowhere, for the same reasons of capitalism’s overwhelming power.
“Democratic”, now there is a very slippery word in any country lol. Regardless, Russia is not communist, I don’t know what you think you’re pointing out. Let’s go ahead and drop it yeah?
I don’t view capitalism as the primary cause, but more as the excuse. We don’t have free unfettered capitalism, there are price controls, labor regulations, every kind of distortion of capitalism: when it serves the agendas at play. When the agenda doesn’t care to protect a certain class, like diabetics with not much money, then the agenda lets capitalism run wild.
So, sure, blame capitalism - it’s what happens when you let people decide how much profit they want in combination with IP protections and monopoly markets. That way you don’t have to point the finger at a “communist” central planning committee that arbitrarily decided the price for something. In the end, it’s still people making decisions. As the song goes: when you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
And people literally had to die to get them. You do understand that, right? Those regulations, however meagre they may be, are written in blood.
So, we don’t actually have “capitalism” now, except where we decide to let it run rampant.
This particular example is a protected monopoly. When you let a protected monopoly loose combined with greedy actors, this is what happens. Doesn’t matter what umbrella you put over it, the fact is: they’ve got what other people need and there’s no competitor out there who isn’t colluding to keep the prices sky high.
We just watched a guy become a trillionaire and dump 200 million dollars into an election for the most powerful seat on the planet. But you don’t think the problem is capitalism???
Citizens United would be my first target. Campaign finance laws in general coming next. A big root cause lies in ownership of “the free press,” that one will be trickier, where does “news” stop and “entertainment” begin - and how would you ever regulate politics out of “entertainment” without impacting free speech? But, it’s important to address if you want to really reduce money’s influence in politics. Unfortunately, our legislators have been running the opposite direction for decades and the ballot box seems ineffective at convincing them to turn around.
Targeting capitalism, or communism, or pastafarianism, is pointless - they’re big fuzzy clouds that you can’t define, can’t contain.
Pls watch this video
The first 30 seconds are going down a very sensible path. It’s not our figureheads which “rule us” - it’s the people who put them in power. In theory it’s a democracy, in practice it’s a mish-mash where the opinions of the masses can be, and are, manipulated by those with the resources and inclination to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leave_the_World_Behind_(film) hit pretty close to my perception of “how it works” in their little monologue about “who makes the decisions.”
You’re confusing religion with economic systems of government.
Capitalism and communism very much have definitions. Don’t let your governments obfuscation of words cloud your mind.
Capitalism and communism very much have definitions, which are not actually practiced in anything resembling “pure form” anywhere on this planet in any society of more than a couple of thousand members in human history.
You might as well call our economic system a religion, like Pastafarianism, because what it actually is is a byzantine collection of laws and rules and regulations which have about as much to do with the “ideals” of either captialism or communism as your average US “Christian” Megachurch has to with the written teachings of Jesus.
Nah, man.
You seem to just be using your own definitions of capitalism and communism. It’s probably not worth bickering much about, but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. Not in the way where I think you’re wrong and I disagree, in the way that your argument isn’t coherent enough to refute.
If anything, that’s my core point. Whatever definition you try to put on capitalism or communism, you won’t find it practiced like that. Our economies are dictated by legislation, executive orders, judicial decisions, corporate actions both inside and outside the law. Labels like capitalism and communism are more window dressing than actual function.
Which is my position regarding people saying “this is capitalism.”
Nah fam. There’s no point in labeling sets of ideas if they’re rendered useless the moment they diverge from your imagined “pure” form. Being more complicated in practice than just a simple textbook definition doesn’t mean they aren’t “that” defined thing, it means textbook definitions are always fundamentally weak and flawed. Oversimplifications, models used to describe, not blueprints used to build.
Capitalism is roughly everywhere, underpinning everything globally because of its roaring success. Communism is roughly nowhere, for the same reasons of capitalism’s overwhelming power.
The distinctions exist and matter.
Finland and Russia are neighbors, both democratic capitalist societies.
“Democratic”, now there is a very slippery word in any country lol. Regardless, Russia is not communist, I don’t know what you think you’re pointing out. Let’s go ahead and drop it yeah?