Implied in your question is the notion that a billionaire or corporation can never be right about a given topic. That just isn’t true.
Also, on any given topic people will have differing opinions for different reasons. Having an opinion that happens to align with a billionaire or corporation isn’t the same as defending those entities. Often you’re stuck siding with one of those entities no matter what side of an issue you fall on.
I like Mark Cuban’s efforts to lower prescription costs. Does that mean I’m siding with a billionaire? If you don’t agree with me should I be able to dismiss your opinion as support for the pharmaceutical industry?
Life isn’t black and white. Opinions can be nuanced and complex. I rarely see any comments defending companies for the pure love of capitalism. Reducing people’s opinions to an easy-to-villainize stance is just that – reductive. It doesn’t aid in meaningful conversation.
Some people think they are part of the club, rest don’t know better
Many people do not grasp the sheer size of the disparity between the truly wealthy and everyone else.
Or they take capitalism as good and freedom as an axiom.
Most people will take “freedom” as an axiom, but how “freedom” is defined varies a lot. In a society where the commons are pretty much fully enclosed and you are homeless, the petite-bourgeois may very well be free, but you really aren’t.
They really think billionaires are like them, the only difference is that someone else goes to Walmart for them
Billionaires are like everyone else. That’s the reason I don’t look up to any. They’re just as human as I am. No amount of money can ever make them anything else or anything more. They have access to an absurd degree, and they can afford far, FAR more, but they will never escape their base human nature. Almost anyone can be a billionaire. Some current billionaires prove that every moment they open their mouths.
Everyone poops.
I believe your comments is just a paraphrase of: “They are being stupid”
In my opinion this is a very toxic way of thinking and does not try to understand the arguments “the other side” presents.
I don’t think it’s that bad-faith. I myself still find it positively mind-blowing to comprehend when the data is right in front of me.
Someone might equate wealth to hard work, but it hasn’t really hit them, the real literal difference between 1 million dollars, and 1 billion, and then the news is talking about “trillionaires.”
There’s just no way to earn a billion dollars, to yourself, through honest work and by not exploiting others. And I think a lot of folks really don’t realize this. They know that’s a lot, but they might change their mind and realize how outrageous it is, when you present them with something like:
“Joe, you could get 3 more promotions and work 80 hours a week for 13 lifetimes and still not earn that much. Do you really think this is just petty jealousy at play?”
They might just change their mind.
But a lot of folks grew up in a time or place where people who ran the company started at the bottom, and it really needs to hit them hard that this just isn’t reality anymore.
Living in denial is easy to continue doing and widely encouraged, while being very hard to overcome.
ITT: A lot of people answering for people who have diametrically opposed views to them.
Lack of good examples of countries that are successful without being capitalist?
Pretty ubiquitously non-capitalist countries have a pretty poor track record.
I often hear the phrase, capitalism is terrible, but it’s the least bad of the terrible options.
As an aside, I’m arguing here for capitalism, not billionaires. Supporting capitalism isn’t an endorsement of a complete lack of controls and safeguards.
Lack of good examples of countries that are successful without being capitalist?
There are many. The USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, etc. Have all drastically improved on previous conditions, achieving large increases in life expectancy, democratization, literacy rates, access to healthcare, housing, education, and more. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
Pretty ubiquitously non-capitalist countries have a pretty poor track record.
This is false. What are you specifically tracking? Freedom for the bourgeoisie?
I often hear the phrase, capitalism is terrible, but it’s the least bad of the terrible options.
The phrase is typically used to describe democracy, not Capitalism.
As an aside, I’m arguing here for capitalism, not billionaires. Supporting capitalism isn’t an endorsement of a complete lack of controls and safeguards.
It doesn’t matter what you support, the Superstructure, ie laws and safeguards, comes primarily from the Base, ie the Mode of Production.
Markets move themselves regardless of people’s will towards centralized syndicates, monopolies over production. These make themselves ripe for siezure and central planning, markets themselves prepare the proletariat for running a socialized economy as they coalesce over time. This is why Marx says the bourgeoisie produces “above all else, its own gravediggers.” There is no maintaining Capitalism, it eliminates itself over time.
USSR starved ethnic minorities to industrialize. How is this success? or is that the price you can accept?
I’m confused, do you think the USSR’s economy was powered by starvation of ethnic minorities, and through this magic starvation power industrialization could occur? What point are you trying to make?
I cant tell if this for real…
But so we are clear… USSR had undesirable minority farmers who didn’t like collectivization.
They need hard currency to buy tooling and equipment to industrialize.
They took all crops from these farmers, sold it on International markets and kicked industrialization into high gear…
Millions died. So yes USSR industrial at expense of millions of lives. I don’t think there is much dispute here.
Do you think Kulaks were an ethnicity, and not a petite bourgeois class? Collectivization of agriculture was poorly done, yes, but it wasn’t what powered industrialization. This is a misanalysis of the USSR.
Weren’t they ukrainian?
I don’t think kazakhs were ever called kulaks, not sure tho
Collectivization of agriculture was poorly done,
And here comes genocide apologia … Again
You’re conflating disparate factors. Ukraine was the breadbasket of the USSR, that doesn’t mean there was a targeted famine towards them.
Kulaks were a group of bourgeois farmers that opposed collectivization. Many of these Kulaks burned their own crops and killed their livestock to avoid handing it over to the Red Army and the Communists.
The famine in Ukraine and parts of Russia was a separate but linked matter. The Kulak resistance to collectivization was multiplied by drought, flood, and pests, making an already low harvest spiral into crisis. The idea that it was an intentional famine and therefore a genocide actually originated in Volkischer Beobatcher, a Nazi news outlet, before spreading to the west. It isn’t “genocide apologia,” it was a horrible tragedy caused by a combination of human and environmental factors.
This is facts. But tankies will downvote
I think the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire” idea is overstated, most people I interact with have a somewhat negative outlook on the economy and their future wealth.
I think the real issue is that no viable alternative is presented to most people.
The alternatives presented are Russian-style authoritarian oligarchy, Islamofascism, or a Venezuela-style “socialism” in which the narrative only focuses on poverty.
I think the real issue is that no viable alternative is presented to most people.
As Marx said, “the ideas of ruling class are the ruling ideas”
The alternatives presented are Russian-style authoritarian oligarchy, Islamofascism, or a Venezuela-style “socialism” in which the narrative only focuses on poverty.
Funnily enough you are proof of your previous statement above. The ruling class is presenting any, both better or worse alternatives to you in such form that you immediately dismiss them.
What gave you the idea that I’m dismissing them? I think you’re confused.
Good quote tho
What gave you the idea that I’m dismissing them?
You, you said “Russian-style authoritarian oligarchy, Islamofascism, or a Venezuela-style “socialism” in which the narrative only focuses on poverty.”
This is blatantly false. And you don’t even know what the alternatives are or aren’t. Russia isn’t an systemic alternative, it’s the very same capitalist as in west, just 100 years late and too late to develop imperialism, it’s only a political alternative which forced them, after over 2 decades of trying to join the capitalist core, to finally oppose it. Islamofascism is such a fucking blatant Bush-era propaganda that i won’t even comment on that nonsense. Venezuela don’t even have socialism, again it’s not an alternative, it’s a capitalist economy which was forced into politically opposing capitalist core because of over century of brutal exploitation by that core.
All three examples your presented are the same narration (even more extreme in case of islam) than the billionaire owned western media oligopoly and their political arms like US DoS spreads. You don’t try to know more (some of examples are in this very thread, and the actual alternatives like China too), you dismiss them in the exact manner the capitalist core ruling class wants you.
My friend, you are still confused.
I was giving the framing that comes from the billionaire owned western media oligopoly position.
that isnt my position
So you do not believe those? Could you elaborate what you think is the alternative for billionaires and especially capitalism?
The PRC is absolutely a viable alternative, it’s a Socialist Market Economy that has been steadily transfering Private Property into Public Property as markets coalesce into monopolist syndicates, which are then capable of central planning.
They have the most wild form of capitalism there is. And they married it with a lot of corruption and zero political freedom. This is not an alternative. Please.
They have a Socialist Market Economy, and married it to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat following whole-process people’s democracy. One of the focuses of Xi’s presidency has been anti-corruption, along with steady socialization of the private sector. Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. You have an ultra-idealist vision of Capitalism that is anti-Marxist. Private property is socialized by degree, not decree!
Yes I have seen you in other comments. And we both know what is the actual state and level of freedom, poverty, and capitalism and corruption in China. Maybe organize a protest in China.
I know you like their system, but for some reason you fail to see issues with their system.
I fail to see the issues you imagine replicated in reality. Leave your mind palace.
Agreed. You can’t argue with how effective it’s been for the country as a whole, but I don’t think i’d rather live there as an individual.
I would not live there. I value freedom and privacy. (In a healthy European way)
What “healthy European” freedom looks like:
- West votes against democracy, human rights, cultural diversity at UN; promotes mercenaries, sanctions
- West opposes rest of world in UN votes for fairer economic system, equality, sustainable development
- China condemns ‘racist’ Western hypocrisy over Ukraine: You ignore victims in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Palestine
- Pro-Palestine activists are under attack in Europe
- Censorship in Europe: Major Palestinian news channels banned on Telegram
- Two months after elections, Macron refuses to nominate progressive prime minister
- Facebook and Instagram Restrict the Use of the Red Triangle Emoji Over Hamas Association
- The 10 European countries that restrict religious attire for Muslim women
- EU court allows conditional headscarves bans at work
- Refugees who died off Italy 10 years ago remembered as new crisis flares
- Poland: Digital investigation proves Poland violated refugees’ rights
- Poland: Abortion Witch Hunt Targets Women, Doctors
What “healthy European” privacy looks like:
- The EU Funds Surveillance Around the World: Here’s What Must be Done About it
- AI mass surveillance at Paris Olympics – a legal scholar on the security boon and privacy nightmare
- Investigation of the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware
- 20 biggest GDPR fines so far [2024] (the fines in question are negligible, and only serve to line the pockets of the rich)
- Female health apps aren’t doing enough to protect sensitive data, study says
“I have an uncle who smoked whole life and is 98 years old” I am sure you know what you have been doing when you presented your “evidence”. Not cool.
I’ve re-read this several times and I still don’t have the slightest clue to what you’re referring to, lib. It’s clear-as-day that you’re just another “They hate us for our freedom” folks and don’t actually care about freedom or privacy for all.
The simple fact is that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty historically than anything else.
Is capitalism a perfect system? Of course it isn’t. But it’s the best one we’ve got.
Not true. Here you go…
The simple fact is that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty historically than anything else.
This is patently false, the PRC holds that record and it was due to Socialism, not Capitalism.
Lol. Firstly, China claims they’ve eradicated absolute poverty. Do you really believe that?
Secondly, China has opened its markets to the world and allowed a ton of private ownership and private companies to take on the global markets.
The only thing that isn’t capitalist about China is the word “Communist” in the ruling party.
Lol. Firstly, China claims they’ve eradicated absolute poverty. Do you really believe that?
Yes, why do you not?
Secondly, China has opened its markets to the world and allowed a ton of private ownership and private companies to take on the global markets.
Yes. Mao misjudged the level of productive forces and tried to establish Communism through fiat. Deng opened the markets to foreign Capital, where the CPC allows businesses to grow in a controlled and careful manner before “harvesting them” into the public sector once they grow sufficiently. The majority of the economy is publicly owned, operated, and planned.
The only thing that isn’t capitalist about China is the word “Communist” in the ruling party.
This is an absurd statement that could only be made by someone unfamiliar with Marxism. The presence of markets do not mean that the system isn’t Socialist. The economy is socialized by degree, not by decree! You can’t establish Communism through fiat, which is why the CPC has been absorbing more Private corporations into the Public sector over time, and exerting more control and planning on the Private sector.
Yes, why do you not?
This is a country where COVID originated and with a population of 1.4 billion, yet apparently only 5,272 people have died. They’re not great at telling the truth and are masters at propaganda.
This is an absurd statement that could only be made by someone unfamiliar with Marxism. The presence of markets do not mean that the system isn’t Socialist.
The profits from companies are retained by the companies. Isn’t the idea of socialism that the workers own the means of production and no companies profit? The Chinese economy is set up the exact opposite.
This is a country where COVID originated and with a population of 1.4 billion, yet apparently only 5,272 people have died. They’re not great at telling the truth and are masters at propaganda.
They took much stronger stances against COVID than the US. Not sure what numbers they actually have, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were low.
The profits from companies are retained by the companies. Isn’t the idea of socialism that the workers own the means of production and no companies profit? The Chinese economy is set up the exact opposite.
You have a fundamental misconception of what Socialism is. It isn’t an ideal to be forced on a society, but the result of markets coalescing and centralizing, to be planned. Additionally, the majority of the PRC’s economy is in the public sector. Private Property is abolished and absorbed by degree, not decree.
Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. I already recommended it, and you have not read it. Read it, it only takes 20 minutes.
TBH… It was due to free market reforms. Which in of itself is not capitalism though but normies can’t tell the difference.
They weren’t “free”-market reforms. A good, 21 minute read is the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. The PRC brought back markets because they tried to achieve Communism through fiat, without letting markets adequately coalesce into monopolist syndicates ripe for socialization. The Dengist Reforms brought stability to growth and prevented recession, but the bulk of the economy is publicly owned and centrally planned.
Because communism ≠ utopia. I only hate on shitty billionaires and ones that used shady methods to amass their wealth.
ones that used shady methods to amass their wealth.
Can you provide an example of one who didn’t?
I guess there some celebrities now in that club… But I can’t even get behind these regime whores. They have no solidarity with the people from which they leech
Blaming individuals produced by the system and not the system itself is strange. That’s like saying the IDF isn’t the problem, the soldiers are.
That’s a fair critique. I don’t like the capitalism we currently practice. I prefer a blend of socialism and capitalism - a social democracy if you will. I don’t hate large corporations per se. I do hate those who commoditize basic necessities such as healthcare and housing. This is where i believe there should be no privatisation.
Social Democracy isn’t a blend of Capitalism and Socialism, it’s Capitalism with social safety nets.
Either way, what you describe maintains accumulation and monopolization, which results in more privitization and disparity, which we see in the Nordic Countries. There are no static systems.
So what does a blend of capitalism and socialism look like to you? I’m saying that sectors which can lead to unfair control over necessary resources should be solely controlled by the government.
And you say monopolization. Monopolization of what exactly? I don’t think you care too much for the monopolization of the gaming industry or the video streaming industry do you?
Also, you emphasize wealth concentration. What exactly do you dislike about it? Especially considering that under a social democracy wealth is only at that point luxury since there is welfare available.
So what does a blend of capitalism and socialism look like to you? I’m saying that sectors which can lead to unfair control over necessary resources should be solely controlled by the government.
There isn’t really such thing as a “blend,” systems are either controlled by the bourgeoisie or proletariat. A socialist country with a large market sector is still socialist, a Capitalist country with a large public sector is still Capitalist. I recommend reading Socialism Developed China, not Capitalism.
And you say monopolization. Monopolization of what exactly? I don’t think you care too much for the monopolization of the gaming industry or the video streaming industry do you?
Monopolization paves the way for socialization. Large, monopolist syndicates make themselves open to central planning and democratic control.
Also, you emphasize wealth concentration. What exactly do you dislike about it? Especially considering that under a social democracy wealth is only at that point luxury since there is welfare available.
Wealth concentration leads to influence, which results in further privitization and erosion of social safety nets, like we see in the declining Nordic Countries.
Interesting. I still disagree with the impossibility of “blends”, but i will take a look at that book you recommended. Thank you for the conversation.
No problem! Let me know if you have any questions.
I don’t know if billionaires are the product of capitalism per se. Billionaires are people who have found out how to exploit the current system the best. In a socialistic society there are plenty of opportunities for corruption and exploitation of the working class. The rules are just a bit different. Billionaires definitely will defend capitalism since it’s how they’re currently winning the game, but they’ll adapt as soon as they need to as well. That or the winners will be a different group of people. Either way, the most powerful will always look for ways to consolidate even more power.
I suggest you read Marx, I can make some recommendations if you like.
Can you name a billionaire who doesn’t match that description?
How about celebrities and not shitty CEOs. I’m generalizing towards multimillionaires as well as there aren’t that many billionaires. Unless the hate is specifically towards billionaires which I don’t think is the case.
However, i would put money on the off chance that there is at least one billionaire who wasn’t shady about their wealth accumulation - think Steve Jobs. Unless you consider holding companies to be shady.
How about celebrities and not shitty CEOs. I’m generalizing towards multimillionaires as well as there aren’t that many billionaires. Unless the hate is specifically towards billionaires which I don’t think is the case.
I just took what you put out there. Generally, I’m skeptical that celebrities will really withstand scrutiny, since they tend to be supported by production crew and lesser-paid artists (whether in music or movies) who get regularly screwed over. Perhaps you can make an okay argument with athletes despite them also being held up by the pipeline from the notoriously exploitative college sports industry, playing in stadiums that are mostly damaging to the city, doing merchandising produced from sweatshops, etc.
But I don’t really care about those arguments. The reason I don’t care is that the conversation is based on an obscurantist metric, that being income. Any decent anti-capitalist is not mainly concerned with how much money someone gets or has, but their relationship to the means of production. That is, they are concerned with whether this person subsists by owning or subsists by working. You displayed what I would consider a good intuition by shifting from CEOs (who generally subsist by owning) to celebrities (who at least kind of subsist by working). It seems somewhat plausible to me that there would be very wealthy athletes, say, in a socialist state, because their job requires a lot of work and, at the top levels, having the talent to accomplish what they can accomplish is rare!
However, i would put money on the off chance that there is at least one billionaire who wasn’t shady about their wealth accumulation
If a machine produces a thousand cubes but also produces at least one octahedron, what would you describe the function of the machine as being?
think Steve Jobs.
When I think of Steve Jobs, I think of someone who put a lot of money and dedication into PR.
As a starting point if you believe that, here’s an article that lightly goes over some of his controversies (ignore points 4 and 10). And here’s one that I think is somewhat more interesting that incidentally demonstrates how dependent he was on exploitation of the third world.
Unless you consider holding companies to be shady.
Owning a company is just a legal status, it’s what you do with it that matters. If what you do with it just happens to be amassing more wealth than many, many people could obtain in a lifetime of labor, you probably didn’t get there with clean hands.
I want to say that i appreciate your nuance on the subject. You have raised many good points, and i will take a lot of what you have said into consideration in my future discussions on the topic.
I also want to give kudos on your shift from focus on income to more the relationship with that income which i agree can create problems especially when it comes to power imbalances. The overfocus on the income is as you put it “obscurantist”.
If a machine produces a thousand cubes but also produces at least one octahedron, what would you describe the function of the machine as being?
You raise a very good point here as well. One which makes sense with your analogy.
I’ve also gone through the articles you posted, and there’s some pretty eye-opening stuff in there.
I guess this is in some ways an admittal of defeat. I do not know whether i completely subscribe to a “communism is the next best”. I think i still need to educate myself more on this topic.
I’m happy I could be helpful!
I guess this is in some ways an admittal of defeat
There’s no need to claim defeat or victory, we’re just talking; Success in communication is determined by the extent to which we are able to understand each other, and I think we did alright.
I think i still need to educate myself more on this topic.
I can’t claim to represent any perspective but my own, but the text that really helped me to begin to see things differently was Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Feel free to DM me/necropost here if there’s anything I can help with.
Thanks man. I’ll be sure to hit you up if i need help with anything!
Why give the regime whores a pass? They play a role within the system to pacify the plebs. They are not by any stretch on the peasant team.
Sure some deff stood tall. Carlin is an example I can stand behind but rest of them esp modern ones are just pathetic sell out.
Seeing Jon cena and one of the clown ba players apologizing to China for $$$
Fucking disgusting
Lack of successful alternatives? It’s easy to find flaws with capitalism but every other system has its share of problems too.
People will find ways to accrue wealth and power even if you change the rules of the game. Sometimes people on this platform make it sound like socialism or communism can solve our problems. but it’s not that simple.
You’re right, Marxists don’t describe a Utopia but the natural progression of the Mode of Production.
Socialism is the successful successor to Capitalism. Socialism isn’t an idea you implement, but a consequence of markets coalescing into monopolist syndicates that make themselves ripe for public ownership and planning.
This is the case only if you believe in Marx
What do you disagree with here? The idea that markets trend towards monopolist syndicates, naturally centralizing production? Or the idea that the Proletariat should sieze these syndicates and plan production democratically and centrally?
I’m not really disagreeing with you to be honest. I’m only saying that your views are the central idea of Marxism. Only Marxists believe in the conflict theory. I’m not a Marxist, but i do think socialism is the next most likely economic stage considering the current capitalist landscape. Whether it is the best path is what i don’t know.
I’m a Marxist-Leninist, correct, but the point of Marxism is that it doesn’t matter what individuals believe, Capitalism itself paves the way for Socialism just like Feudalism paved the way for Capitalism.
Hmm i don’t know about that. Saying that this one theory explains social change is kinda restrictive. There are other valid ideas that aren’t the conflict theory that might also result in social change. Think of idealist theories such as Hegel’s dialectical process which involves a thesis and antithesis. These theses eventually contradict each other to form a synthesis which eventually becomes its own thesis and vice versa.
I just like to keep an open mind about this stuff, as i don’t think social change boils down to just one theory.
I find this reply very strange because it’s the core point of Marxism that it’s dialectical but materialist. It has a lot of forebears, but Hegel is the most direct and obvious of them.
This new German philosophy culminated in the Hegelian system. In this system — and herein is its great merit — for the first time the whole world, natural, historical, intellectual, is represented as a process — i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformation, development; and the attempt is made to trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and development. From this point of view, the history of mankind no longer appeared as a wild whirl of senseless deeds of violence, all equally condemnable at the judgment seat of mature philosophic reason and which are best forgotten as quickly as possible, but as the process of evolution of man himself. It was now the task of the intellect to follow the gradual march of this process through all its devious ways, and to trace out the inner law running through all its apparently accidental phenomena.
That the Hegelian system did not solve the problem it propounded is here immaterial. Its epoch-making merit was that it propounded the problem. This problem is one that no single individual will ever be able to solve. Although Hegel was — with Saint-Simon — the most encyclopaedic mind of his time, yet he was limited, first, by the necessary limited extent of his own knowledge and, second, by the limited extent and depth of the knowledge and conceptions of his age. To these limits, a third must be added; Hegel was an idealist. To him, the thoughts within his brain were not the more or less abstract pictures of actual things and processes, but, conversely, things and their evolution were only the realized pictures of the “Idea”, existing somewhere from eternity before the world was. This way of thinking turned everything upside down, and completely reversed the actual connection of things in the world. Correctly and ingeniously as many groups of facts were grasped by Hegel, yet, for the reasons just given, there is much that is botched, artificial, labored, in a word, wrong in point of detail. The Hegelian system, in itself, was a colossal miscarriage — but it was also the last of its kind.
It was suffering, in fact, from an internal and incurable contradiction. Upon the one hand, its essential proposition was the conception that human history is a process of evolution, which, by its very nature, cannot find its intellectual final term in the discovery of any so-called absolute truth. But, on the other hand, it laid claim to being the very essence of this absolute truth. A system of natural and historical knowledge, embracing everything, and final for all time, is a contradiction to the fundamental law of dialectic reasoning.
– Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
i don’t think social change boils down to just one theory.
If we believe that the universe fundamentally makes sense, then it must stem from that that it can all be explained on the same terms. Furthermore, within a domain, the extent to which a theory is unable to explain some part of that domain is the extent to which it either fails or is in-utero just a component of a larger theory whose other parts can cover those other areas. Not only can social change boil down to one theory, if you believe we live in an interconnected, logical world, it must boil down to one theory. Obviously there are many competitors for that title, and none of them are yet developed enough to properly claim it, but it is a legitimate and even a necessary title.
Edit: Sorry for piling on about the dialectics part, I see Cowbee did go over it later. fwiw I think he didn’t represent materialism fairly, but part of why I included the Engels quote is because I think he does represent Hegelian idealism and its fundamental problem (How can this dialectic of humans – material beings – take place in the world of ideas?) fairly.
Idealism is wrong, though, so focusing on it is useless IMO.
Marx has the best content on the topic, shit is so good it triggers daddy owners to this lol
I kinda like Marx sooo…
I would say I like some dead guy… But his work is foundational for any self respecting adult imho
With out Understanding these concepts you are ain’t fucking operating
Also, elites study him closely and a lot of the regime behavior is actually designed to suppress workers based on his writings.
Ohh the irony.
Often because they’re profiting from it themselves.
I think it’s like the old trope of asking a fish how the water is and they reply “what’s water?”
They believe that the status quo is better than any alternatives. They have not been exposed to other ways of living and those that have lock themselves to basic tribalistic thinking.
Imagine trying to get a sports fan to see the benefits of being a fan of another sports team. Even if they aren’t personally playing and their team isn’t winning they maintain loyalty. Some even bet on their loser teams and lose money just because of loyalty.
It’s all about team loyalty/ tribalism
Excellent answer and I’ll also jump off this to say this applies to marginalized groups just as much as anyone else, in a way I see a lot of people forget all about. Some percentage of marginalized people, through being in the right place and/or putting themselves there, do experience upward mobility through capitalism and therefore identify with it.
People forget that queer conservatives exist, but think about a gay couple with a lot of wealth, living a fairly standard nuclear family existence with an adopted kid or two, integrated into a society that probably still doesn’t fully trust them but sees enough signifiers of “normality” that they’re willing to let it slide. Which side of the political divide benefits them the most to align with? And what ideological principles will they come to internalize in the long term? Might they come to see themselves as somehow different or better than others in their marginalized community?
I’m getting tired of the fluff pieces expressing shock at the fact that some % of black voters are conservative, clutching their pearls at the thought of that number increasing, and speculating about black churches and “social conservatism.” While also completely disregarding the fact that black voters have always leaned left yet are also affected by some of the same political shifts that every other demographic is. Our first loyalty is generally to our class.
They don’t have to balls to think for themselves.
Liberalism doesn’t exist because of moral failures of individuals, but because the Mode of Production supports the laws, ideology, art, culture, etc. that exist from it.
Interesting question. I don’t think I’ve ever defended either. I’ve also only lived in capitalist countries, so I have no personal experience with other economic systems.
