3 ms·
This is not at all the effect being discussed. The effect being discussed is laid out quite plainly in the subtitle. I'll just quote it here, and save you the e
by ouid 8y ago
This is not at all the effect being discussed. The effect being discussed is laid out quite plainly in the subtitle. I'll just quote it here, and save you the effort of right clicking and selecting open in new tab:
"The idea that authoritarianism attracts workers harmed by the free market, which emerged when the Nazis were in power, has been making a comeback."
It's a very simple mechanism. Capitalism produces winners and losers. The losers are eventually an angry majority. An angry majority will vote to maximize change.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoOptimistically, I think this is somewhat a self-limiting problem. Capitalism wound up helping workers - sharing far more of the gains with them than in Marx's day. Why? Out of the goodness of capitalists' hearts? Perhaps to some degree, but I think that part of the reason was the challenge of communism. Capitalists wanted to show that capitalism could give workers a better deal than communism, and in doing so, cut much of the ground out from under communism. Why would I want to try to bring about a "communist workers' paradise", if I see that I'm actually better off as a worker under another system? But after the collapse of communism, the capitalists have seemed to suck more of the money out, leaving less for the workers. That leaves the majority the losers, and becoming angrier and angrier. As you say, they're going to vote for change... unless the capitalists wise up. The other problem is, people keep offering them change, and the angry majority votes for them, and the promised change keeps on not showing up. Eventually, the angry majority is going to want to do more than just vote...