4 ms·

any anyone who understands how capitalism works would understand this will never change under capitalism

syklep 3y ago
Why call it capitalism as opposed to a free market? 'Capital' stands for money but the 'market' pressure is why these dark patterns emerge.
- kazinator 3y ago
  Because it's not a free market with those with deep pockets manipulate the rules that get enshrined into law.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    Which means there can never be a free market since there will always be people able to bribe and manipulate in order to get their way. It doesn't matter how much oversight and transparency you have, those things can be slowly chipped away overtime and replaced with laws that favor the ultra rich at the expense of everyone else. I'd love to be wrong about that, but I've never seen an example of a country where wealth had no power to influence law.
    - philbin 2y ago
      [dead]
  - syklep 3y ago
    That's not capitalism or a free market, it's corrupt governance and was never an intended 'feature'
- readyman 3y ago
  Because capitalism is an entirely different concept. Capitalism is an economic system of relations that prioritizes the right to exercise one's existing capital to accumulate more of it, hence the word capitalism. So-called "free markets" is a utopian concept that is not a requirement of capitalism and of course has never existed in any honest sense of the idea.
  - kazinator 3y ago
    Free markets arguably exist in the plant and animal kingdoms.
    - readyman 3y ago
      Sure, I can accept that because it is a concept fundamentally at odds with civilization.
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
It's way better under socialism, where there are no up and comers.
- readyman 3y ago
  This seems to presume that one's wealth is the only measure of individual value anyone cares about, which is just absurd. One can be wealthy beyond belief and still be an up-and-comer in many aspects of their life, and under socialism those aspects would almost certainly have more meaning. I would personally prefer wealth have less meaning and these other things have more, which makes socialism attractive to me.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - kazinator 3y ago
    Socialism is thoroughly materialistic. The socialist state regards itself as owning the productive capacity of its individuals, and tends to the distribution of wealth. The pariah in a socialist society is he who has the capacity for work, but instead lives off the state. Or he who dodges taxes. Socialism is concerned with distribution of resources to satisfy human needs, and bring about an equitable society. But those needs are material needs, and the equality is material. It's not about redistributing spiritual or intellectual resources to make everyone equally spiritual or smart! It's purely about keeping everyone warm, dry, in good health and with a full stomach. The only non-materialistic aspect of socialism is the meta level: choosing equitable materialism over inequitable. The idea that all people deserve to be reasonably well off is a different form of materialism from "I want me and my family to be well off, screw the rest" that represents much of capitalism. Socialists regard themselves as supremely virtuous due to clinging to this idea of equality. It is almost religious. There are obvious links between equality in socialism and in Christianity. The proper socialist is like a disciple of Jesus who has renounced everything spiritual, and just remembers the stories about healing the sick, feeding the multitude, and "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's".
    - 3y ago

Why call it capitalism as opposed to a free market? 'Capital' stands for money but the 'market' pressure is why these dark patterns emerge.

kazinator 3y ago
Because it's not a free market with those with deep pockets manipulate the rules that get enshrined into law.
- autoexec 3y ago
  Which means there can never be a free market since there will always be people able to bribe and manipulate in order to get their way. It doesn't matter how much oversight and transparency you have, those things can be slowly chipped away overtime and replaced with laws that favor the ultra rich at the expense of everyone else. I'd love to be wrong about that, but I've never seen an example of a country where wealth had no power to influence law.
  - philbin 2y ago
    [dead]
- syklep 3y ago
  That's not capitalism or a free market, it's corrupt governance and was never an intended 'feature'
readyman 3y ago
Because capitalism is an entirely different concept. Capitalism is an economic system of relations that prioritizes the right to exercise one's existing capital to accumulate more of it, hence the word capitalism. So-called "free markets" is a utopian concept that is not a requirement of capitalism and of course has never existed in any honest sense of the idea.
- kazinator 3y ago
  Free markets arguably exist in the plant and animal kingdoms.
  - readyman 3y ago
    Sure, I can accept that because it is a concept fundamentally at odds with civilization.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago

It's way better under socialism, where there are no up and comers.

readyman 3y ago
This seems to presume that one's wealth is the only measure of individual value anyone cares about, which is just absurd. One can be wealthy beyond belief and still be an up-and-comer in many aspects of their life, and under socialism those aspects would almost certainly have more meaning. I would personally prefer wealth have less meaning and these other things have more, which makes socialism attractive to me.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kazinator 3y ago
  Socialism is thoroughly materialistic. The socialist state regards itself as owning the productive capacity of its individuals, and tends to the distribution of wealth. The pariah in a socialist society is he who has the capacity for work, but instead lives off the state. Or he who dodges taxes. Socialism is concerned with distribution of resources to satisfy human needs, and bring about an equitable society. But those needs are material needs, and the equality is material. It's not about redistributing spiritual or intellectual resources to make everyone equally spiritual or smart! It's purely about keeping everyone warm, dry, in good health and with a full stomach. The only non-materialistic aspect of socialism is the meta level: choosing equitable materialism over inequitable. The idea that all people deserve to be reasonably well off is a different form of materialism from "I want me and my family to be well off, screw the rest" that represents much of capitalism. Socialists regard themselves as supremely virtuous due to clinging to this idea of equality. It is almost religious. There are obvious links between equality in socialism and in Christianity. The proper socialist is like a disciple of Jesus who has renounced everything spiritual, and just remembers the stories about healing the sick, feeding the multitude, and "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's".
  - 3y ago