5 ms·

The distorting power of money. And then think: if it can distort our collective understanding of the world, could it distort our government, our elections, etc.

The distorting power of money. And then think: if it can distort our collective understanding of the world, could it distort our government, our elections, etc.? The problem with capitalism is that it destroys democracy. Money distributes to a small group of people who then have overwhelming influence over the government, available information, and so on. We also see that as money flows away from the poor, and the affordability of essential goods like housing, food, and healthcare worsen, those who should gain from democracy rightfully grow to hate it, and vote to destroy it (e.g voting for Trump). We need a new economics.

dartos 2y ago
Idk if capitalism is solely to blame. Is not like we’ve seen less corruption on the other end of the spectrum. Many European countries are also capitalist, but don’t seem (at least from the outside) to have the same rampant corporate influence on government as the US. Granted they are more open to socialist policy, most of which seem like good ideas. We have some companies in the US that have been around for nearly as long as the country itself. These companies pre-dated regulation and had a hand in building it. As a legislator, you’d want input from experts before writing laws. IMO that’s why corporate involvement in politics is so normal in the US. I’m not sure if that the case for many European countries. It’d be great to find a new economic axis that can break us out of the planned economy/radical free market axis.
- swed420 2y ago
  > It’d be great to find a new economic axis that can break us out of the planned economy/radical free market axis. Here's one start: https://jacobin.com/2019/03/sam-gindin-socialist-planning-models https://jacobin.com/2019/03/sam-gindin-socialist-planning-mo...
  - dartos 2y ago
    That seems to be more a guide on how to sell socialism rather than providing another economic axis. Did I miss something?
    - swed420 2y ago
      > socialism That's too broad of a term to carry universal meaning without the context provided by the article. The piece is more of a modern translation based on present conditions, and it isn't to be confused with "the Nordic model" or any other instance or attempt that readers might instinctively cling to when hearing the word.
ninetyninenine 2y ago
Communism was developed to combat this issue. We’ve known about this problem for a while and communism was the solution to it. But there’s an even bigger problem with communism is the lack of correct incentives. Turns out capitalism is better than communism purely because it has the right incentives. In most countries we have hybrid models. > We need a new economics Right now many parts of the US are dangerously close to extremist liberalist agendas. It’s as big of an issue (if not bigger) as the neoconservative issue back when bush jr was president. Wouldn’t be surprised if liberalism took over and communism became the overarching thought process. We already redefined pronouns.
- aniviacat 2y ago
  Moving from the conflict between capitalism and democracy to complaining about neo-pronouns is quite a jump. It's pretty wild to put the "extremist agendas" of what pronouns people use anywhere near the significance of our economic and governmental systems.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    >Moving from the conflict between capitalism and democracy to complaining about neo-pronouns is quite a jump. Democracy does not conflict with capitalism. It's capitalism vs. communism. For democracy it's democracy vs. autocracy. Communism can still be a democracy. Also I never said anything about neopronouns. What is even a neopronoun? >It's pretty wild to put the "extremist agendas" of what pronouns people use anywhere near the significance of our economic and governmental systems. It's associated. I use to be a liberal, but the definition changed and now I'm more moderate. I agree with distribution of wealth but I don't agree with pronouns which are also a liberal thing. These two things nowadays go hand in hand with the term "liberal".
    - aniviacat 2y ago
      > Communism can still be a democracy. Communism (per Marx) describes a stateless society. A society without a state cannot be a democracy. Communism is antidemocratic per definition. The reason why communism describes both the economic and the political system of a society is because the two are intertwined. > Democracy does not conflict with capitalism. Capitalism offers various means to private entities to steer democratic vote. The two are intertwined just like all other political and economic systems. > These two things nowadays go hand in hand with the term "liberal". Perhaps. I don't know what your bubble currently considers to be liberal politics. I still don't see why you consider pronoun usage to be such a significant issue.
GordonS 2y ago
> We need a new economics It could be argued that capitalism has played a significant part in the improvement in our living conditions and the technogical development of our species. Then again, it could also rather easily be argued that capitalism is a plague on society that will inevitably result in total domination by a handful of billionaires. But what realistic alternatives are there? And even if such an alternative exists, why would those in control - who benefit the most from capitalism - relinquish their power?
- philosopher1234 2y ago
  Capitalism is an objective benefit to our species, much has improved that couldn’t have under feudalism. Yet, just as you might rearrange your house when you have kids, we should rearrange our economy when the existing system no longer meets our needs. The challenges you point out are massive, but if it’s true that a change is necessary, then the challenges must be overcome.
  - GordonS 2y ago
    I imagine most Europeans would be happy with a rule such as "no individual to own €1B in assets" as a start. But even if rules for a fairer, more equitable form of capitalism can be devised, I fear the entrenched position and loose morals of the top capitalists would be difficult or impossible to overcome.
    - philosopher1234 2y ago
      Me too. It seems almost impossible. But I don’t know any other option, so I invest my hope in the possibility that, if there were a broader openness to change, maybe some new ideas might come along (or abandoned ones might become possible)

dartos 2y ago

Idk if capitalism is solely to blame. Is not like we’ve seen less corruption on the other end of the spectrum. Many European countries are also capitalist, but don’t seem (at least from the outside) to have the same rampant corporate influence on government as the US. Granted they are more open to socialist policy, most of which seem like good ideas. We have some companies in the US that have been around for nearly as long as the country itself. These companies pre-dated regulation and had a hand in building it. As a legislator, you’d want input from experts before writing laws. IMO that’s why corporate involvement in politics is so normal in the US. I’m not sure if that the case for many European countries. It’d be great to find a new economic axis that can break us out of the planned economy/radical free market axis.

swed420 2y ago
> It’d be great to find a new economic axis that can break us out of the planned economy/radical free market axis. Here's one start: https://jacobin.com/2019/03/sam-gindin-socialist-planning-models https://jacobin.com/2019/03/sam-gindin-socialist-planning-mo...
- dartos 2y ago
  That seems to be more a guide on how to sell socialism rather than providing another economic axis. Did I miss something?
  - swed420 2y ago
    > socialism That's too broad of a term to carry universal meaning without the context provided by the article. The piece is more of a modern translation based on present conditions, and it isn't to be confused with "the Nordic model" or any other instance or attempt that readers might instinctively cling to when hearing the word.

ninetyninenine 2y ago

Communism was developed to combat this issue. We’ve known about this problem for a while and communism was the solution to it. But there’s an even bigger problem with communism is the lack of correct incentives. Turns out capitalism is better than communism purely because it has the right incentives. In most countries we have hybrid models. > We need a new economics Right now many parts of the US are dangerously close to extremist liberalist agendas. It’s as big of an issue (if not bigger) as the neoconservative issue back when bush jr was president. Wouldn’t be surprised if liberalism took over and communism became the overarching thought process. We already redefined pronouns.

aniviacat 2y ago
Moving from the conflict between capitalism and democracy to complaining about neo-pronouns is quite a jump. It's pretty wild to put the "extremist agendas" of what pronouns people use anywhere near the significance of our economic and governmental systems.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  >Moving from the conflict between capitalism and democracy to complaining about neo-pronouns is quite a jump. Democracy does not conflict with capitalism. It's capitalism vs. communism. For democracy it's democracy vs. autocracy. Communism can still be a democracy. Also I never said anything about neopronouns. What is even a neopronoun? >It's pretty wild to put the "extremist agendas" of what pronouns people use anywhere near the significance of our economic and governmental systems. It's associated. I use to be a liberal, but the definition changed and now I'm more moderate. I agree with distribution of wealth but I don't agree with pronouns which are also a liberal thing. These two things nowadays go hand in hand with the term "liberal".
  - aniviacat 2y ago
    > Communism can still be a democracy. Communism (per Marx) describes a stateless society. A society without a state cannot be a democracy. Communism is antidemocratic per definition. The reason why communism describes both the economic and the political system of a society is because the two are intertwined. > Democracy does not conflict with capitalism. Capitalism offers various means to private entities to steer democratic vote. The two are intertwined just like all other political and economic systems. > These two things nowadays go hand in hand with the term "liberal". Perhaps. I don't know what your bubble currently considers to be liberal politics. I still don't see why you consider pronoun usage to be such a significant issue.

GordonS 2y ago

> We need a new economics It could be argued that capitalism has played a significant part in the improvement in our living conditions and the technogical development of our species. Then again, it could also rather easily be argued that capitalism is a plague on society that will inevitably result in total domination by a handful of billionaires. But what realistic alternatives are there? And even if such an alternative exists, why would those in control - who benefit the most from capitalism - relinquish their power?

philosopher1234 2y ago
Capitalism is an objective benefit to our species, much has improved that couldn’t have under feudalism. Yet, just as you might rearrange your house when you have kids, we should rearrange our economy when the existing system no longer meets our needs. The challenges you point out are massive, but if it’s true that a change is necessary, then the challenges must be overcome.
- GordonS 2y ago
  I imagine most Europeans would be happy with a rule such as "no individual to own €1B in assets" as a start. But even if rules for a fairer, more equitable form of capitalism can be devised, I fear the entrenched position and loose morals of the top capitalists would be difficult or impossible to overcome.
  - philosopher1234 2y ago
    Me too. It seems almost impossible. But I don’t know any other option, so I invest my hope in the possibility that, if there were a broader openness to change, maybe some new ideas might come along (or abandoned ones might become possible)