9 ms·

If capitalism wants to avoid putting money in with power, then what is lobbying? And there are plenty of examples of companies having and using violence. That

by fipar 2y ago

If capitalism wants to avoid putting money in with power, then what is lobbying? And there are plenty of examples of companies having and using violence. That in more civilized countries it happens less than before is because of the struggle of previous generations and not out of the good design of capitalism. Mind you, I’ll take capitalism over any of the existing alternatives any day, but I think your view is very naive.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> If capitalism wants to avoid putting money in with power, then what is lobbying? Lobbying is spending money to try and pursuade people with power to do something. That's not the same as having power. And lobbying is not a particularly capitalist mechanism. It's people talking to government.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  That explanation would only work if lobbyists were limited to sitting down and having conversations with those in power. In the real world, US politicians make off with plenty of "donations" and gifts/favors that greatly influence them. The NRA, for example, hasn't kept politicians from meaningful gun control laws because they hired the most convincing lobbyists/conversationalists.
  - nathan_compton 2y ago
    "The NRA, for example, hasn't kept politicians from meaningful gun control laws because they hired the most convincing lobbyists/conversationalists." Counterpoint: arguably they have.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      So is it your opinion that the NRA has been so successful through words alone? That politicians have never received any financial or political gain from the NRA at all?
      - nathan_compton 2y ago
        Duh, I misread your statement. Yes, its the money.
- nathan_compton 2y ago
  > That's not the same as having power. Sure, to first order, it isn't the same. But in practice they end up being very similar things and I think its a genuine issue with a system which justifies capitalism by saying "the excesses will be restrained by the state." In practice, capital spends quite a lot of time and money capturing and restraining the state. I've come to feel that people are just fundamentally ungovernable at some deep level and so all solutions end up with glaring imperfections. We just have to ride the dragon of history, basically.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > capital spends quite a lot of time and money capturing and restraining the state. To be fair, under democracy, everyone must be doing this. That is your democratic obligation. Most people just don't. And fair enough that they don't – I value prioritizing putting a roof over my head and having food to eat too! Perhaps the takeaway here is, ultimately, that capitalism and democracy are incompatible?
    - nathan_compton 2y ago
      I really don't know, frankly. I think to a degree one needs to have a good civil culture, but capital also works hard to influence culture for its own benefit. Maybe we just don't even have the social technology to square this circle yet.

by fipar 2y ago

robertlagrant 2y ago

> If capitalism wants to avoid putting money in with power, then what is lobbying? Lobbying is spending money to try and pursuade people with power to do something. That's not the same as having power. And lobbying is not a particularly capitalist mechanism. It's people talking to government.

_heimdall 2y ago
That explanation would only work if lobbyists were limited to sitting down and having conversations with those in power. In the real world, US politicians make off with plenty of "donations" and gifts/favors that greatly influence them. The NRA, for example, hasn't kept politicians from meaningful gun control laws because they hired the most convincing lobbyists/conversationalists.
- nathan_compton 2y ago
  "The NRA, for example, hasn't kept politicians from meaningful gun control laws because they hired the most convincing lobbyists/conversationalists." Counterpoint: arguably they have.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    So is it your opinion that the NRA has been so successful through words alone? That politicians have never received any financial or political gain from the NRA at all?
    - nathan_compton 2y ago
      Duh, I misread your statement. Yes, its the money.
nathan_compton 2y ago
> That's not the same as having power. Sure, to first order, it isn't the same. But in practice they end up being very similar things and I think its a genuine issue with a system which justifies capitalism by saying "the excesses will be restrained by the state." In practice, capital spends quite a lot of time and money capturing and restraining the state. I've come to feel that people are just fundamentally ungovernable at some deep level and so all solutions end up with glaring imperfections. We just have to ride the dragon of history, basically.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > capital spends quite a lot of time and money capturing and restraining the state. To be fair, under democracy, everyone must be doing this. That is your democratic obligation. Most people just don't. And fair enough that they don't – I value prioritizing putting a roof over my head and having food to eat too! Perhaps the takeaway here is, ultimately, that capitalism and democracy are incompatible?
  - nathan_compton 2y ago
    I really don't know, frankly. I think to a degree one needs to have a good civil culture, but capital also works hard to influence culture for its own benefit. Maybe we just don't even have the social technology to square this circle yet.