3 ms·
The fact that a pure thing never existed doesn’t mean that something more pure didn’t / can’t exist. That’s also not what late stage capitalism, the term, gene
by keiferski 3y ago
The fact that a pure thing never existed doesn’t mean that something more pure didn’t / can’t exist.
That’s also not what late stage capitalism, the term, generally refers to.
If a key part of capitalism is competition, then clearly whatever we have now is not very capitalist. The primary reason this term (late stage capitalism) is used is because people lack knowledge about economic history and can’t seem to operate on anything more complex than good-bad, capitalist-communist, private-public.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y agoA key part of capitalism is rhetoric about competition. Oppressive monopoly is the inevitable outcome of "competitive" capitalism. The point is so obvious it's trivial to model mathematically. I believe there was even a board game invented to make the point.
- krapp 3y agoCompetition isn't a key part of capitalism - it only exists where governments force markets to optimize for "fairness" over efficiency. Left to their own devices, corporations will tend towards oligopoly and monopoly, so they can control the most capital with the least risk.
- keiferski 3y agoWhich capitalist theorists say that competition isn’t crucial for the success of capitalism? It’s entirely integral to the proper functioning of the system. What you’re describing is that not being followed, which is exactly the point I’m making.
- sham1 3y ago> Which capitalist theorists say that competition isn’t crucial for the success of capitalism? > > It’s entirely integral to the proper functioning of the system. What you’re describing is that not being followed, which is exactly the point I’m making. Well, what's good for the system is not necessarily the optimal state for any given individual actors in the system. I'm sure that you'd agree that from a profit perspective, monopolistic market dominance would be the ideal state, since you wouldn't have competitors to force prices down. Or would you argue that these kinds of companies want competition and that they wouldn't choose total market dominance if given the chance? This, meanwhile, would not be good for the system as a whole, which is why you get competition and also things like anti-trust laws to make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen, or that even if a natural monopoly, things are still functional.