30 ms·

You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition? That begs the question of the natural form of government that would exist without capi

by blowski 10y ago

You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition? That begs the question of the natural form of government that would exist without capitalism. It seems to me that once societies are big enough to need government, they first reach for something like feudalism, then capitalism. That's a simplified version of Marx. I don't see capitalism as inherently corrupt, but I can see how it has a tendency to become corrupt without tight regulation. It does favour the ruling class, but that's the inherent nature of government - those who put it in place put something that suits their interests.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition? No, I'm saying "capitalism" is a name for a particular manner of corruption of government. Or, more fully, a particular-but-still-quite-corrupt stage in the evolution of government away from the perfectly corrupt state of public power unified with the personal interest of the ruler or members of the ruling class with no distinction, wherein the structure of property rights established by government creates and maintains a ruling class which still has disproportionate and dominant power over the formal public power, but in which nevertheless (unlike preceding stages) there exists a formal, if often misleading, distinction between the formal institutions of public power and the members of the ruling class.
- blowski 10y ago
  You sound quite interested and interesting on this topic. Any recommended reading? I'm a bit of a lefty, but don't see any particular innovation - the fight is between those who prioritise 'being electable' (Clinton, Blair) because you can't change anything if you're not in power, and those who focus on emphasising the genuine problems (Sanders, Corbyn) but are unlikely to gain power. Neither seem to have any real solutions, it's just a matter how much they tap into the anger and frustration of the non-elites. Trump, Farage, Le Pen mine that frustration much deeper but don't seem to have any wide-ranging agenda beyond protecting the elites while pretending to do the opposite.

by blowski 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition? No, I'm saying "capitalism" is a name for a particular manner of corruption of government. Or, more fully, a particular-but-still-quite-corrupt stage in the evolution of government away from the perfectly corrupt state of public power unified with the personal interest of the ruler or members of the ruling class with no distinction, wherein the structure of property rights established by government creates and maintains a ruling class which still has disproportionate and dominant power over the formal public power, but in which nevertheless (unlike preceding stages) there exists a formal, if often misleading, distinction between the formal institutions of public power and the members of the ruling class.

blowski 10y ago
You sound quite interested and interesting on this topic. Any recommended reading? I'm a bit of a lefty, but don't see any particular innovation - the fight is between those who prioritise 'being electable' (Clinton, Blair) because you can't change anything if you're not in power, and those who focus on emphasising the genuine problems (Sanders, Corbyn) but are unlikely to gain power. Neither seem to have any real solutions, it's just a matter how much they tap into the anger and frustration of the non-elites. Trump, Farage, Le Pen mine that frustration much deeper but don't seem to have any wide-ranging agenda beyond protecting the elites while pretending to do the opposite.