this ^^^^^^^^^^
1 Like
@MrAuthoritarian i appreciate the banana lol. though i don’t know whether i am to take offense to it or not
1 Like
It’s my go to emoji when somebody says something controversial or if it falls under the category of rage bait. Offense?
I suppose that depends on your point of view.
1 Like
He likes to leave his banana everywhere, but for some reason keeps screaming when you start to peel it.
1 Like
yeah, like you just can’t leave it out and not expect me to… nevermind
1 Like
Yeah ok but what about it?
1 Like
People love to say “socialism has never worked” while never examining how often capitalism fails. Businesses go under every single day. Inflation rarely ceases. The economy regularly crashes. Monopolies routinely take over entire industries. And at any given moment, there is massive wealth inequality, which actually grows when capitalism is said to be “working”, leading ultimately to the next cycle of crises.
1 Like
Socialism fails because it is an ideology that never fulfills its promises (and, in fact, becomes an obscene exaggeration of the very fantasy enemy it conjured).
Capitalism doesn’t fail because it is not an ideology. It is an idiotic communist’s shitty analysis of the financial markets.
1 Like
Firstly, capitalism is both an economic system and, for many people, an ideology. Those who claim that ‘capitalism isn’t an ideology’ typically mean that it is merely a mechanism comprising private ownership, voluntary exchange, markets and prices. They distinguish it from ideological systems such as Marxism or fascism, which prescribe comprehensive visions of society. However, defenders of capitalism often make ideological claims, such as the idea that free markets naturally produce freedom or justice. Similarly, critics often argue that capitalism embodies assumptions about human nature, competition and property that are ideological.
Adam Smith, often called the father of capitalism, warned in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, that merchants naturally seek to reduce competition. Book I, Chapter X, Part II: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
Smith did not advocate laissez-faire in the absolute sense, however, as he recognised the need for laws and institutions to prevent concentrations of economic power.
Even economists who reject Marx’s assertion that capitalism has an inherent tendency towards concentration have acknowledged this tendency. Businesses compete, larger firms absorb smaller ones, profits accumulate in fewer hands, and wealth becomes increasingly concentrated until capitalism undermines itself. The Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter believed that the success of capitalism would lead to giant corporations that would eventually undermine the entrepreneurial spirit that created them.
Unregulated or weakly regulated capitalism has a tendency towards the concentration of wealth and market power. Unless this is counterbalanced by competition law, democratic institutions and other checks and balances, it can lead to oligopolies or monopolies, in which a relatively small number of firms dominate markets.
1 Like
You mean no one believes that there are winners in capitalism? Who is she strawmanning?
Not at all, I’m saying that the denstiy of strawman arguments here is staggering, from any ‘side’ there are here
OK, I thought you meant the topic was a strawman, not the arguments.
1 Like
Fair enough: I wasn’t clear, my fault. It was a miscalculated jest
1 Like