• quindraco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    6 months ago

    That’s not true at all. Capitalism has many flaws, but your claim is simply false.

    I’m guessing you’re conflating capitalism with the deeply non-capitalist legal structures that have been erected on top of it in most of the world. One of the most common examples is corporate welfare, which is exactly as capitalist as welfare for private citizens. I’m not trying to attack or defend welfare with this statement, but I am emphasizing that that’s not how capitalism works.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      States controlled by bourgeois interests are a consequence of Capitalism and an extension of it, not some random freak occurance.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Indeed. I like the idea of capitalism, but it rapidly becomes something else, something more sinister and harmful to all. It doesn’t just stay capitalism. It concentrates wealth and then the wealth makes the bottom fall out.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          What is a “middle class?” Are you referring to the Petite Bourgeoisie, or well-paid Proletarians?

          • quindraco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            of or characteristic of the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes.

            “a rich, bored, bourgeois family”

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Bourgeois refers to Capitalists. Rich certainly doesn’t sound like a “middle” class, lol.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m open to learning. How does capitalism avoid the infinite concentration of wealth into the hands of one eventually?

      • quindraco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Every system has flaws, to be sure - e.g. in Saudi Arabia, which is as anticapitalist as possible due to the government owning everything, all wealth is concentrated in the monarch - and capitalism is no exception. My answer to you has to be specific to certain types of goods, because for other types, capitalism will absolutely fail in the manner you describe and needs government regulation not to.

        In this context, I will use “fail” to mean the failure you asked about, only 1 wealthy person.

        Example where capitalism will generally not fail, and, in fact, has never failed in recorded history: restaurants. If our mysterious wealthy person attempts to own every restaurant simultaneously, someone else will open a rival restaurant and the plan will fail (and even if somehow no one could open a rival anywhere, people could choose to eat at home). No one in any country has ever managed to own every restaurant at once.

        Example where capitalism will absolutely fail over time: oil. It is trivial, given enough time, for one person to eventually own all access to oil - Rockefeller is a great example of someone working hard at this, successfully.

        • henfredemars@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I appreciate the thoughtful and intelligent response.

          I will not move the goalposts and change 1 to some arbitrary small number. I will instead ask how do we prevent capitalism from concentrating wealth so much that, like a black hole, it overcomes degeneracy pressure and collapses, changing its own rules to benefit those at the very top and prevent the possibility of actual competition? This is the bastardization that we have today in the USA, and to me, this seems like the inevitable conclusion. It tends to concentrate wealth and power and to not be capitalism anymore. This extreme consolidation eventually warps its own mechanisms, becoming not very different from top-down, planned economy – just a badly-designed, ad-hoc, self-serving one.

          The reality is that economic systems aren’t black and white. I don’t think we have true unregulated capitalism anywhere, and you admit there are areas (like healthcare) where capitalism is truly stupid or easily reaches critical mass to prevent competition (like oil).

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          This is a such a strawman.

          If only 1.000 persons owns all restaurants its stupidly bad too.

          • quindraco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            But that’s not the question I was asked. Answering the question I was asked doesn’t make my answer a strawman.

      • quindraco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        Corruption is no more likely in capitalism than in any other system.