3 ms·
I don't, but it's clear that there were societies where the vast majority of the political power served capital, so from then on you can say that they were unhi
by sudosysgen 5y ago
I don't, but it's clear that there were societies where the vast majority of the political power served capital, so from then on you can say that they were unhindered capitalism. Of course, there is always some political power that is not wielded by capitalists, even merely because the state requires a military and capitalism requires the state, but since that is inherent to capitalism it can still be said to be part of capitalism without any restraint.
- MichaelZuo 5y ago‘ but since that is inherent to capitalism it can still be said to be part of capitalism without any restraint.’ It certainly seems like your assigning 100% of it.
- sudosysgen 5y agoIt is inherent to capitalism that not 100% of political power belong to capitalists, yes. That's not equivalent to what you claim I said.
- MichaelZuo 5y agoIf they don’t have 100%, how can they engage in unhindered capitalism? If the other forces hold even 1% of the total, they by definition can hinder the capitalist forces.