6 ms·

If the two options are a) everybody except the rich get hurt and b) everybody including the rich get hurt, then I think the majority of Americans would go with

If the two options are a) everybody except the rich get hurt and b) everybody including the rich get hurt, then I think the majority of Americans would go with b.

aceazzameen 4y ago
B is definitely where we're at. Many Americans are tired of watching the rich get bailed out with socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor. Meanwhile the not-rich continue to struggle in every aspect of life, from food to housing. And blame is placed squarely on the rich, who have a greater voice in the elected government.
- CapstanRoller 4y ago
  >socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor. That's called "capitalism". Socialism has nothing to do with it. Please try not to muddle basic terminology like this. It makes discourse harder for everyone.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    No. That is called crony capitalism. True capitalism would let these banks burn and allow those who saved or have capital buy them up. No gov intervention allowed.
    - CapstanRoller 4y ago
      No, it's just called "capitalism". The thing you call cronyism is a core feature, not a bug: under capitalism, the capitalist class advances its own interests. Please stop trying to redefine basic terminology to suit your agenda.
      - hellojesus 4y ago
        I disagree with you.
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        OK, disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that specific words still have specific meanings.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Yes, but we're disagreeing about the specific meaning of words. Capitalism describes an economy where capital is the mechanism through which goods and services are allocated. It is not the partnership of public and private entities, as you suggest. That would be crony capitalism. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crony%20capitalism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crony%20capitalis...
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        That page describes how "crony capitalism" is used colloquially. Dictionaries are not a great source for determining canonical meaning of complex political terminology. I argue that usage of the term "crony capitalism" is itself a form of capitalist ideology.
        bumby 4y ago
        Dictionaries are not a great source for determining canonical meaning of complex political terminology. Yet a Marxist site is used as an unbiased source. Oh, the irony.
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        >Yet a Marxist site is used as an unbiased source. You're welcome to present a capitalist site as a source for the definition you prefer, and I'd be happy to discuss that. Just don't use a dictionary, please! It's the wrong tool for the job here, regardless of political leanings.
      - bumby 4y ago
        Please give your definition of capitalism because it feels a little muddled itself.
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        Capitalism The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour. Wage labour is the labour process in capitalist society: the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) buy the labour power of those who do not own the means of production (the proletariat), and use it to increase the value of their property (capital). In pre-capitalist societies, the labour of the producers was rendered to the ruling class by traditional obligations or sheer force, rather than as a “free” act of purchase and sale as in capitalist society. Value is increased through the appropriation of surplus value from wage labour. In societies which produce beyond the necessary level of subsistence, there is a social surplus, i.e. people produce more than they need for immediate reproduction. In capitalism, surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist class by extending the working day beyond necessary labour time. That extra labour is used by the capitalist for profit; used in whatever ways they choose. The main classes under capitalism are the proletariat (the sellers of labour power) and the bourgeoisie (the buyers of labour power). The value of every product is divided between wages and profit, and there is an irreconcilable class struggle over the division of this product. https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm
        bumby 4y ago
        It probably doesn't need to be said, but it's pretty obvious the bias in that definition. There is no singular definition of capitalism, but many others would differ on the distinction you've drawn from earlier posts. E.g., a system based on the reinvestment of excess profits does not necessarily equate to crony-capitalism. It seems your issue is with the person using the word "socialism" to describe a social ill of crony capitalism. But there is a distinction there that is being muddled in the conversation.
        4y ago
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    It's literally in the name. Capital-ism. I'm not sure how it could be clearer. It'd be weird if a system so-named didn't favor capital owners.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
xeromal 4y ago
I don't think those are the only two options though. b) The rich now have less billions but still billions and everyone else now has to budget even harder.

If the two options are a) everybody except the rich get hurt and b) everybody including the rich get hurt, then I think the majority of Americans would go with b.

aceazzameen 4y ago

B is definitely where we're at. Many Americans are tired of watching the rich get bailed out with socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor. Meanwhile the not-rich continue to struggle in every aspect of life, from food to housing. And blame is placed squarely on the rich, who have a greater voice in the elected government.

CapstanRoller 4y ago
>socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor. That's called "capitalism". Socialism has nothing to do with it. Please try not to muddle basic terminology like this. It makes discourse harder for everyone.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  No. That is called crony capitalism. True capitalism would let these banks burn and allow those who saved or have capital buy them up. No gov intervention allowed.
  - CapstanRoller 4y ago
    No, it's just called "capitalism". The thing you call cronyism is a core feature, not a bug: under capitalism, the capitalist class advances its own interests. Please stop trying to redefine basic terminology to suit your agenda.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      I disagree with you.
      - CapstanRoller 4y ago
        OK, disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that specific words still have specific meanings.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Yes, but we're disagreeing about the specific meaning of words. Capitalism describes an economy where capital is the mechanism through which goods and services are allocated. It is not the partnership of public and private entities, as you suggest. That would be crony capitalism. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crony%20capitalism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crony%20capitalis...
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        That page describes how "crony capitalism" is used colloquially. Dictionaries are not a great source for determining canonical meaning of complex political terminology. I argue that usage of the term "crony capitalism" is itself a form of capitalist ideology.
        bumby 4y ago
        Dictionaries are not a great source for determining canonical meaning of complex political terminology. Yet a Marxist site is used as an unbiased source. Oh, the irony.
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        >Yet a Marxist site is used as an unbiased source. You're welcome to present a capitalist site as a source for the definition you prefer, and I'd be happy to discuss that. Just don't use a dictionary, please! It's the wrong tool for the job here, regardless of political leanings.
    - bumby 4y ago
      Please give your definition of capitalism because it feels a little muddled itself.
      - CapstanRoller 4y ago
        Capitalism The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour. Wage labour is the labour process in capitalist society: the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) buy the labour power of those who do not own the means of production (the proletariat), and use it to increase the value of their property (capital). In pre-capitalist societies, the labour of the producers was rendered to the ruling class by traditional obligations or sheer force, rather than as a “free” act of purchase and sale as in capitalist society. Value is increased through the appropriation of surplus value from wage labour. In societies which produce beyond the necessary level of subsistence, there is a social surplus, i.e. people produce more than they need for immediate reproduction. In capitalism, surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist class by extending the working day beyond necessary labour time. That extra labour is used by the capitalist for profit; used in whatever ways they choose. The main classes under capitalism are the proletariat (the sellers of labour power) and the bourgeoisie (the buyers of labour power). The value of every product is divided between wages and profit, and there is an irreconcilable class struggle over the division of this product. https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm
        bumby 4y ago
        It probably doesn't need to be said, but it's pretty obvious the bias in that definition. There is no singular definition of capitalism, but many others would differ on the distinction you've drawn from earlier posts. E.g., a system based on the reinvestment of excess profits does not necessarily equate to crony-capitalism. It seems your issue is with the person using the word "socialism" to describe a social ill of crony capitalism. But there is a distinction there that is being muddled in the conversation.
        4y ago
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  It's literally in the name. Capital-ism. I'm not sure how it could be clearer. It'd be weird if a system so-named didn't favor capital owners.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

xeromal 4y ago

I don't think those are the only two options though. b) The rich now have less billions but still billions and everyone else now has to budget even harder.