Capitalism - What It Is - and Isn't

I read a lot of criticism about capitalism - what else to expect in a authoritarian world promoting socialism - but it seems that there is very little actual understanding of capitalism among its critics - rather merely blame for all of the ills in society. I posted a thread on Capitalism vs Opportunism in an effort to try to bring a little light on the real source of societal problems - maybe that helped a little. And now I want to do a deeper dive into exactly what capitalism really is - where it came from - what it actually does - and what it doesn’t do.

Basically if you hate capitalism - there are only two reasons [list]- ignorance and opportunistic authoritarian propaganda.[/list:u]
Capitalism
Not that Wikipedia can be trusted with this type of subject (one of its founders has warned to not trust it any longer) - but let’s start with Wiki’s definition of Capitalism -

First Capitalism is a system - to distinguish it from anarchy. It is a system concerning trade between people - any kind of trade - not merely money - “I will give you this for that”. And a system requires a degree of cooperation and coordination from non-system components (in this case - people). Without a system - it is every man for himself - a brutal struggle for dominance. To have any kind of society requires a system concerning interactive trade expectations.

Private Property and Profit
And within a capitalist system there are to be privately owned and operated means of production and means to accomplish greater individual success. Private property rights are upheld and an individual’s right to profit from his efforts are respected. It is not merely about money.

Free Trade and Labor
And also within a capitalistic system there must be free trade among competitors (which means there must be competitors - not a single overarching government controlling outcomes - such as “Equity”). The trade and labor are all voluntary and competitive - forced labor or trade is not allowed - by private company or by government. Again it is not merely about money.

And even though Wiki separates out “market economic decision-making and investments” from competitive pricing, goods, and services - they are virtually the same thing - decisions are made by the private owners of whatever is involved rather than a ruling government.

Democracy
“Democracy” is the distribution of decision-making in a society (usually by voting). If and when decision-making is centralized by any means (such as by exclusive ownership or the extremely wealthy, powerful, or connected) the society is no longer a democracy. Capitalism is the competitive distribution of wealth and democracy is the competitive distribution of rule. Democratic rule and capitalism go hand in hand - there cannot be one without the other - lose either one and both are lost.

Monopolies
Easily the single greatest threat to a free democratic society and capitalism is the rise of monopolies. A monopoly is the natural rise of a strong competitor so much above the others that he takes over the entire market and dictates the rules. A monopoly is the exact opposite of Capitalism - it is Socialism - one party rule - a monopoly over the entire society. It should be obvious that the USA’s greatest mistake during the last century was to allow monopolies within its democratic system - although often unrecognized as such - until far too late.

That is the basic idea of capitalism - but where did it come from?
I don’t think capitalism was invented. Capitalism is a part of nature - and always has been. It appears that Karl Marx was right in saying that the beginning of an economic system is capitalistic - he merely named what was already naturally happening - not only during man’s reign - but probably for 100s of millions of years because there is almost no distinction between the idea of trade and the idea of capitalism (even sex is an issue of capitalistic trade). The difference seems to be merely that capitalism is institutionalized common trade practices - with protections against the bullies - the monopolies and authoritarians.

Capitalism says - “We with military authority are going to let you be you in your effort to live as long as you don’t take too much advantage - competition will be allowed and encouraged.” And people naturally compete (as all species seem to do). The idea of allowing competition seems to be to inspire greater competence and perfection - “if you want more - you are going to have to outbid or out perform the competition.” Again that is merely a part of nature - except with added protections.

So okay but now - what does it lead to? There is good and bad in everything.
The process that we call “life” seems to be merely a creature using its talents in an effort to survive. When those talents are blocked or taken away (no actual opportunity) - there is no life. Merely feeding a creature until it dies is not living - talents atrophy - incentive fades away - there is no meaning or purpose to pursue - individuals become merely anatomical mechanisms void of any spirit beyond merely eating whatever they are fed and sleeping when it occurs - barn animals awaiting eventual execution when their usefulness to others fades out.

Capitalism changes all of that. Capitalism proposes that the individual does not have to disregard his talents and live without hope of anything ever getting better. Capitalism proposes that people seek out an opportunity to “make something of themselves” - encourages and allows that to happen. And that proposition has proven to work well - very very many people have risen from having almost nothing to live for into a life of hope-filled activity and freedom - using the talents they were born with and cultured rather than wasted away. Capitalism offers opportunity to those with very little and opportunity realizes inspiration and hope - “from rags to riches”.

But where is the love? Is capitalism all about brutal competition void of compassion? - only in the propaganda.
When capitalism is lost one of the first things noticed is that services become poor and delayed. The people doing the service have no reason to try to be efficient or friendly. They become bureaucratic - “these are the rules - fill out the form - and go away - is the day over yet”.

When a retailer wants to gain more customers he is told to “be more friendly - be more lenient - provide better service - show a little compassion!” Of course his deeper feeling might really only be selfish - but not always and even if he begins that way - people learn to become more compassionate even when there is no immediate or foreseeable profit - it becomes expected, the norm, and a habit - the environment changes - people become more comfortable, safer, and feel more alive - and they actually are. Competitors don’t like to lose their customers.

But a capitalist society does not depend entirely on good business sense for the love that a society must have within. A governing body can allow capitalistic endeavors and also have common social programs for those who - for whatever reason - cannot compete. Inspired products and services still improve through that competition and that makes them available for the social programs to utilize. Without those competitors social programs become too poor to help anyone. And being compassionate toward those in need is good competitive strategy. Social programs and capitalism work as a team as long as neither unduly displaces the other.

So where is all of that bad coming from if not from capitalists?
As I explained before (Capitalism vs Opportunism) it comes from opportunistic corruption and the monopolies it produces. One of the monopolies they produce is called “Socialism” - the monopoly on all trade and all compassion.

Through competition companies become corporations (many companies incorporated into one) and create jobs and opportunity for millions - more than any government ever could. And they become very powerful and influential. But the degree of influence permitted is actually up to the government. Corporations can’t do anything that their government doesn’t allow - except for the tremendous amount of corruption in both government and corporations.

The bad that is so often cast upon capitalism actually has very little to do with capitalism. It is entirely due to bad governing of capitalism - not preventing government corruption and allowing monopolies. Corruption is far more prevalent in socialist and communist societies than in capitalistic societies (bribes, influence pedaling, and secret cabals). All capitalism does is allow for many people to gain so much wealth and influence that the temptation for corruption becomes insurmountable for all involved. The result of such corruption is called “Crony Capitalism” - or “Socialism” (two means to the same result). Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos have become so wealthy through their monopolies that they could buy entire countries - but at the moment are having too much fun just manipulating them and their elections - to gain even more monopolistic, authoritarian control.

Once corruption has set in - democracy gets lost and socialism (usually through Marxist tactics) takes over ALL trade - the singularity monopoly - and by those very same corrupt people who destroyed the democratic opportunities that capitalism provided. Life becomes totally artificial. Individuals become nothing but numbers and farm animals to manipulate until they are no longer useful - competition dissolves into favoritism and back-room payoffs - talents are lost - hope is lost - and life becomes nothing but drudgery while watching an elite class of privileged rulers over-tax and stamp down a vast field of the hopelessly impoverished.

If you don’t believe it - talk to people who have escaped Cuba, the USSR, North Korea, or China.

Social justice - actual social justice - is allowing people to prosper by their own inspiration and talents - individualism - not collectivism - not anti-democratic, anti-capitalistic authoritarian socialism - and most importantly - not corruption. If you want social justice - fight really really hard against CORRUPTION - not against competition.

If you still hate capitalism - you just haven’t taken a good look at the alternatives.

Not a member of the Coalition of Truth?

Then fuck off, Commie.

On the other hand, given James S. Saint’s understanding of determinism, were you ever really able to choose of your own volition to be a member of the Coalition of Truth?

No?

Then welcome.

K: it is rare to find a thread/post with as much ignorance as this one…
I will try to bring this nonsense to light, but there is so much, I may find
it hard to find a shovel large enough to shovel this much crap…

obsrvr524:I read a lot of criticism about capitalism - what else to expect in a authoritarian world promoting socialism - but it seems that there is very little actual understanding of capitalism among its critics - rather merely blame for all of the ills in society. I posted a thread on Capitalism vs Opportunism in an effort to try to bring a little light on the real source of societal problems - maybe that helped a little. And now I want to do a deeper dive into exactly what capitalism really is - where it came from - what it actually does - and what it doesn’t do.
Basically if you hate capitalism - there are only two reasons [list]- ignorance and opportunistic authoritarian propaganda.[/list:u]

K; right off the bat we have problems… you have label communism as bad
and Marxism as bad… but you haven’t, before this, said squat about Socialism…
so, is Socialism really your target or are going to shift the goalpost
by bringing in Marxism or communism? I don’t have a problem with the terms,
just stick to one…and our first ignorance is the statement about hating
capitalism from either being ignorant or this gobblegook that means
absolutely nothing…‘‘opportunistic authoritarian propaganda’’ whatever the
hell that means? the way you say this leaves out any possibility for dialogue…
there is no third choice and without a third choice, there is no choice…
to ask someone, do you want to be shot or hung, is no choice.

O: Capitalism
Not that Wikipedia can be trusted with this type of subject (one of its founders has warned to not trust it any longer) - but let’s start with Wiki’s definition of Capitalism -

K: this is the theory of capitalism but it isn’t the reality of capitalism…it leaves out vast
amount of what happens in capitalism, for one example, it never mentions taxes…
and most business today, work toward getting massive tax cuts…for example over
100 companies in America pay no taxes including Amazon and moble- exxon…
companies that make over a billion dollars a years in profits and pay no taxes of
any kind… where does that reality fit into your theoretical model?
and that is just one example of the theory not being reality…

O: First Capitalism is a system - to distinguish it from anarchy. It is a system concerning trade between people - any kind of trade - not merely money - “I will give you this for that”. And a system requires a degree of cooperation and coordination from non-system components (in this case - people). Without a system - it is every man for himself - a brutal struggle for dominance. To have any kind of society requires a system concerning interactive trade expectations.

K: and who controls and organizes this system? the next point, please feel free to point out
where in America that trade takes place without some currency involved?

O: Private Property and Profit
And within a capitalist system there are to be privately owned and operated means of production and means to accomplish greater individual success. Private property rights are upheld and an individual’s right to profit from his efforts are respected. It is not merely about money.

K: again with the nonsense… it is all about the money…you use cute terms like this:
“means to accomplish greater individual success” but turn that phrase into reality,
what does that mean? I say that the term “to accomplish greater individual success”
actually has no meaning in the real world…

O: Free Trade and Labor
And also within a capitalistic system there must be free trade among competitors (which means there must be competitors - not a single overarching government controlling outcomes - such as “Equity”). The trade and labor are all voluntary and competitive - forced labor or trade is not allowed - by private company or by government. Again it is not merely about money.

K: once again, theory that doesn’t match the reality… you claim that no “forced labor” or
“trade” (trade makes no sense in this context)… no forces labor… that is completely wrong…
show me a person who is working outside of the capitalism system? every company functions,
in America at least, under capitalism and thus you are forced to work within a capitalistic system…
there is no choice… you either work in a capitalistic system or you starve to death, this is not
a choice…you have no freedom to work outside of capitalism…you are forced into it…

O: And even though Wiki separates out “market economic decision-making and investments” from competitive pricing, goods, and services - they are virtually the same thing - decisions are made by the private owners of whatever is involved rather than a ruling government.

K: the stockholders or the CEO and the like? makes a difference…

O: Democracy
“Democracy” is the distribution of decision-making in a society (usually by voting). If and when decision-making is centralized by any means (such as by exclusive ownership or the extremely wealthy, powerful, or connected) the society is no longer a democracy. Capitalism is the competitive distribution of wealth and democracy is the competitive distribution of rule. Democratic rule and capitalism go hand in hand - there cannot be one without the other - lose either one and both are lost.

K: this is nonsense… you can have any political system match with any economic system…
for example, you can match a dictatorship with a capitalism… you are confused about
political systems and what are economic systems…
and your thought that “democracy is the competitive distribution of rule” is simple wrong…
the very essence of democracy isn’t being competitive, it is cooperation… not only that,
but frankly your definition of democracy sucks…my handy dandy dictionary says this:

Democracy: “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible
members of a state, typically through elected representatives”

How the fuck do you get “democracy is the competitive distribution of rule” from
my dictionary definition?

O: Monopolies
Easily the single greatest threat to a free democratic society and capitalism is the rise of monopolies. A monopoly is the natural rise of a strong competitor so much above the others that he takes over the entire market and dictates the rules. A monopoly is the exact opposite of Capitalism - it is Socialism - one party rule - a monopoly over the entire society. It should be obvious that the USA’s greatest mistake during the last century was to allow monopolies within its democratic system - although often unrecognized as such - until far too late.

K: Once again, mixing up a political system from an economic system… how does a
monopoly become a threat to a political system unless the political system has already
been corrupted by big business and money…and a monopoly has nothing to do with
socialism if, if you have defined socialism as a political system… one party rule is a political
system, not an economic system… this is the problem (one of many) with your take,
it doesn’t define anything so we don’t know what the hell you are talking about?

OThat is the basic idea of capitalism - but where did it come from?
I don’t think capitalism was invented. Capitalism is a part of nature - and always has been. It appears that Karl Marx was right in saying that the beginning of an economic system is capitalistic - he merely named what was already naturally happening - not only during man’s reign - but probably for 100s of millions of years because there is almost no distinction between the idea of trade and the idea of capitalism (even sex is an issue of capitalistic trade). The difference seems to be merely that capitalism is institutionalized common trade practices - with protections against the bullies - the monopolies and authoritarians.

K: of course capitalism was invented…show me capitalism within nature? which is the concept
as you have defined it as “trade”… so, show me how nature trades?
and what about this 100 of millions of years? that makes no sense whatsoever…
a hundred million years ago, we had dinosaurs…are you saying dinosaurs were
trading and engaged in labor practices and practicing capitalism?

O: Capitalism says - “We with military authority are going to let you be you in your effort to live as long as you don’t take too much advantage - competition will be allowed and encouraged.” And people naturally compete (as all species seem to do). The idea of allowing competition seems to be to inspire greater competence and perfection - “if you want more - you are going to have to outbid or out perform the competition.” Again that is merely a part of nature - except with added protections.

K: what the fuck does the military have to do with anything? your statements are full of shit…
for example, "and people naturally compete (as all species seem to do)‘’ that is flat out wrong,
biologically and otherwise…

and we get to the big lie…that competition or capitalism seem to create “greater competence
and perfection” have you ever worked in a big corporation? I have several times and again
am doing so today… big corporations are incompetent and inept… to a degree that is
scary… if corporations were so competent, why about the social security question?
as if you have the slightest clue what that means…

O: So okay but now - what does it lead to? There is good and bad in everything.
The process that we call “life” seems to be merely a creature using its talents in an effort to survive. When those talents are blocked or taken away (no actual opportunity) - there is no life. Merely feeding a creature until it dies is not living - talents atrophy - incentive fades away - there is no meaning or purpose to pursue - individuals become merely anatomical mechanisms void of any spirit beyond merely eating whatever they are fed and sleeping when it occurs - barn animals awaiting eventual execution when their usefulness to others fades out.

K: now you are just babbling nonsense… with no meaning of any kind…

O: Capitalism changes all of that. Capitalism proposes that the individual does not have to disregard his talents and live without hope of anything ever getting better. Capitalism proposes that people seek out an opportunity to “make something of themselves” - encourages and allows that to happen. And that proposition has proven to work well - very very many people have risen from having almost nothing to live for into a life of hope-filled activity and freedom - using the talents they were born with and cultured rather than wasted away. Capitalism offers opportunity to those with very little and opportunity realizes inspiration and hope - “from rags to riches”.

K: Capitalism does nothing of the sort you claim here… you are simply barfing out nonsense.
like this crap: "capitalism proposes ( it does nothing of the sort) that people seek out
an opportunity to “make something of themselves”… what a bunch of crap… capitalism
does nothing of the sort… I have worked for over 40 years in business, big and small,
and this type of propaganda doesn’t deserve to live another day longer… IT IS A LIE… that
you can become something if you just work hard and play ball…the rest of this paragraph
is stolen from bad self help books and you should apologize for stealing worthless
pop psychology that Dr. Phil would be embarrassed to offer up…

O: But where is the love? Is capitalism all about brutal competition void of compassion? - only in the propaganda.
When capitalism is lost one of the first things noticed is that services become poor and delayed. The people doing the service have no reason to try to be efficient or friendly. They become bureaucratic - “these are the rules - fill out the form - and go away - is the day over yet”.

K: and again, let us deal with reality… the only goal of capitalism is to make profits…
it has no other goal, thus human values that make life worth living, has no point in
capitalism… love, hope, charity, peace are completely and utterly worthless in
business… all it has to offer us is the chance to slowly starve to death without an dignity…

O:When a retailer wants to gain more customers he is told to “be more friendly - be more lenient - provide better service - show a little compassion!” Of course his deeper feeling might really only be selfish - but not always and even if he begins that way - people learn to become more compassionate even when there is no immediate or foreseeable profit - it becomes expected, the norm, and a habit - the environment changes - people become more comfortable, safer, and feel more alive - and they actually are. Competitors don’t like to lose their customers.

K: as I have worked in retail for almost 20 years, I can say, that you have no idea
what you are talking about…(my 20 years in retail includes years of management)
you are completely clueless what happens in retail… in my current retail job, I have
worked there for 14 years… and I can state, you have no fucking idea…

O: But a capitalist society does not depend entirely on good business sense for the love that a society must have within. A governing body can allow capitalistic endeavors and also have common social programs for those who - for whatever reason - cannot compete. Inspired products and services still improve through that competition and that makes them available for the social programs to utilize. Without those competitors social programs become too poor to help anyone. And being compassionate toward those in need is good competitive strategy. Social programs and capitalism work as a team as long as neither unduly displaces the other.

K: this is the type of crap that gives you a really bad name…this is the pretend bullshit
that corporations want you to believe in their well funded and slick ads… but it is horseshit
and all corporations care about and give a shit about is profits… if you die on the street tonight,
they don’t give a shit… and whatever pretend programs they advertise about is just PR to
make idiots like you think that big business cares, they don’t…

Olist]So where is all of that bad coming from if not from capitalists?[/list]
As I explained before (Capitalism vs Opportunism) it comes from opportunistic corruption and the monopolies it produces. One of the monopolies they produce is called “Socialism” - the monopoly on all trade and all compassion.

K: this is simply word salad that pretend to say something and it doesn’t say a fucking thing…

O:Through competition companies become corporations (many companies incorporated into one) and create jobs and opportunity for millions - more than any government ever could. And they become very powerful and influential. But the degree of influence permitted is actually up to the government. Corporations can’t do anything that their government doesn’t allow - except for the tremendous amount of corruption in both government and corporations.

K: more corporate hype that is as far away from the truth as can possible be…

O: The bad that is so often cast upon capitalism actually has very little to do with capitalism. It is entirely due to bad governing of capitalism - not preventing government corruption and allowing monopolies. Corruption is far more prevalent in socialist and communist societies than in capitalistic societies (bribes, influence pedaling, and secret cabals). All capitalism does is allow for many people to gain so much wealth and influence that the temptation for corruption becomes insurmountable for all involved. The result of such corruption is called “Crony Capitalism” - or “Socialism” (two means to the same result). Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos have become so wealthy through their monopolies that they could buy entire countries - but at the moment are having too much fun just manipulating them and their elections - to gain even more monopolistic, authoritarian control.

K: corruption is rampant in this country…you just have to stop believing the
corporate ads that say otherwise…although one statement needs to be attacked…
“All capitalism does is allow for many people to gain so much wealth and influence
that the temptation for corruption becomes insurmouontable for all involved”

K: the fact is that capitalism has focused wealth into the hands of a very small group
of people… in other words, 500 people have as much wealth as half the entire world
put together…please feel free to justify that shit…

O: Once corruption has set in - democracy gets lost and socialism (usually through Marxist tactics) takes over ALL trade - the singularity monopoly - and by those very same corrupt people who destroyed the democratic opportunities that capitalism provided. Life becomes totally artificial. Individuals become nothing but numbers and farm animals to manipulate until they are no longer useful - competition dissolves into favoritism and back-room payoffs - talents are lost - hope is lost - and life becomes nothing but drudgery while watching an elite class of privileged rulers over-tax and stamp down a vast field of the hopelessly impoverished.

K: and missing the point that it is capitalism that is the corruption that has set in…
it is from capitalism that has created your corruption scenario

O: If you don’t believe it - talk to people who have escaped Cuba, the USSR, North Korea, or China.

K: again, you are unable to tell the difference between a political system and an economic system…

OSocial justice - actual social justice - is allowing people to prosper by their own inspiration and talents - individualism - not collectivism - not anti-democratic, anti-capitalistic authoritarian socialism - and most importantly - not corruption. If you want social justice - fight really really hard against CORRUPTION - not against competition.
If you still hate capitalism - you just haven’t taken a good look at the alternatives.
[/quote]
K: I am wondering if you left any cliche untouched…the U.S chamber of Commerce
could have written this fact free threat…with high sounding words that mean nothing…

or as the bard once wrote, possible with your thread/post in mind…

“…and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”

Kropotkin

Rather than get into yet another argument over socialism/capitalism, I just want to remind everyone the elite aren’t socialists, or capitalists, they’re cronyists and control both parties, Labour/Tories in the UK, Libcons in Canada and Republicraps in the US.
I also want to point out most people are social democrats.
Socialism is a relatively extreme position, but so is capitalism, so good luck trying to convince people public education, healthcare, infrastructure, a 40 hour work week, minimum wage, safe working conditions and welfare oughta be abolished, people are barely surviving on them as is.

I’m politically nonbinary, government does a lot of bad, but it does some good too.
My suggestion to libertarians is to pick your battles.
Abolishing the aforementioned programs would be deeply unpopular and undemocratic.
Of all the things government gets up to, at the very least they’ve got to be the most benign.
Why not focus on government programs that’re unpopular instead, like bombing the shit out of other countries, corporatism, medical fascism and political correctness?
That’s the kind of shit people hate right across the political spectrum.
Otherwise, you’re just alienating people who may otherwise agree with you on a lot of issues.

Is ending education, healthcare, infrastructure, min wage and welfare really at the top of the priority list for libertarians?
If so, libertarianism and libertarian leaning folks are doomed to remain a fringe phenomenon by and large only certain sorts of upperclass people support.
This kind of debate has always been popular on net forums like iLP, but it’s not the sort of conversation happening in the real world; absolute privatization/absolute socialization.

Gloominary: Rather than get into yet another argument over socialism/capitalism, I just want to remind everyone the elite aren’t socialists, or capitalists, they’re cronyists and control both parties, Labour/Tories in the UK, Libcons in Canada and Republicraps in the US.
I also want to point out most people are social democrats."

K: and what evidence do you present that “Most people are social democrats”…
because I can’t even tell what that means, little less who is a and who isn’t a
social democrat?

G: Socialism is a relatively extreme position, but so is capitalism, so good luck trying to convince people public education, healthcare, infrastructure, a 40 hour work week, minimum wage, safe working conditions and welfare oughta be abolished, people are barely surviving on them as is.

I’m politically nonbinary, government does a lot of bad, but it does some good too.
My suggestion to libertarians is to pick your battles.
Abolishing the aforementioned programs would be deeply unpopular and undemocratic.
Of all the things government gets up to, at the very least they’ve got to be the most benign.
Why not focus on government programs that’re unpopular instead, like bombing the shit out of other countries, corporatism, censorship and political correctness?
That’s the kind of shit people hate right across the political spectrum.
Otherwise, you’re just alienating people who may otherwise agree you on a lot of issues.

K: you can reduce political science down to two points, A. Who makes the rules?
and B. who pays?.. that is, if reduce down to its essential point, is what political science
really is, who makes the rules and who pay’s for it…

G: Is ending education, healthcare, infrastructure, min wage and welfare really at the top of the priority list for libertarians?
If so, libertarianism and libertarian leaning folks are doomed to remain a fringe phenomenon by and large only certain sorts of upperclass people support.
This kind of debate has always been popular on net forums like iLP, but it’s not the sort of conversation happening in the real world; absolute privatization/absolute socialization.
[/quote]
K: so the question becomes, why have education, healthcare, infrastructure, minimum wage
and welfare? who does it benefit? and what will happen if we were to remove it from our
political state? I can answer the second question first, all out civil war, between the
wealthy and the massive numbers of working poor and the ever shrinking middle class…
and it won’t be pretty…the poor and middle class have numbers and the wealthy will
have the bought and paid for state, the police, military, the courts and the politicians…

we have seen in America where property rights are way more important then the lives
of its citizens… and that favors the wealthy… for the military/state/police will have no
problem shooting massive numbers of the working poor and middle class because the
military and police and the politicians know who is writing out the checks and it ain’t
the poor or the middle class… the wealthy have bought the entire state apparatus
and will bring that to bear in any war of inequality between the classes…

this type of class warfare isn’t that far away from us now… all it really needs is
leadership for the working poor and the middle class…
and that leadership has traditionally come from the upper class…
in just about every revolution, the leadership for the working class has come
from the middle or upper class… and this class warfare will be no different…

the question is not if, the question is really when… when will the class warfare in
America begin? for the upper class has been at war with the lower and middle class
since Ronald Raygun, the 1980’s… and we, the lower and middle class has yet to fight back,
but the day will come when we will have no choice but to fight back… and then it is “game on”…

Kropotkin

I agree with pretty much everything you just said, just want to ask you, if you believe class warfare is coming, and that the military and politicians will be on the upper class’s side, then why do you want to take guns away from the working and middleclass?
Let me tell you dems/libs are not on the side of the working class, neither are reps/cons.

For me, democracy means something different than it does for Obsrvr.
To him, it’s inextricably linked to capitalism, to me it’s inextricably linked to pluralism, having at least more than one creed from which to select, as well as populism.
Sure, Locke’s liberty is essential for democracy, but so is Rousseau’s general will.
‘Liberty, equality, fraternity’.
There’s also a ton of different ideas about what liberty is, even among libertarians.

Individuals and communities have different ideas and ideals about how to govern and these ideas and ideals aren’t static, they’re dynamic, they evolve overtime.
Democracy is about having a great public debate, voting for what and who you believe in and accepting your loss should your side lose.
If we were all in exact agreement over how to run the economy and every other domain or sphere of life, there’d be no need for democracy, may as well just have a king or single party state.

That being said, there are limits with what I’m willing to put up with, and I know I’m far from the only one, especially these days.
Perhaps we’re reaching the limits of what one half or a sizeable minority of the population are willing to put up with from the other side when it comes to or retains power, in which case our democracy is in jeopardy.

In a lot of ways, socialism suits democracy best, more so decentralized, libertarian market socialism than centralized authoritarian socialism.
Socialism is democratic ownership of production and distribution, either by workers themselves or everyone as a whole.
Cooperatives, or nationalization.
Social democracy is the synthesis between capitalism and socialism; keep production and distribution in private hands but regulate it in the interests of workers, consumers and redistribute some of the wealth to the working class and poor in the form of cash and some free or cheap goods and services with an emphasis on what’s essential.

I agree with social democrats about lots of economic stuff, but I got some issues with them; 1) many of them cling to so called ‘center-left’ parties, like dems/labour/libs.
These parties rarely, if ever do anything for us even when they control all 3 branches of gov; they’re fiscally and militarily fascist.
2) Many are for censorship, gun control and opposed to any sort of nationalism.
They’re obsessed with identity politics, climate and now hygiene.
All the sudden they’re in love with big pharma.
Real socialists would at least be suspicious of gov partnering with big pharma to take our freedoms and impose their experimental products, they’d suspect fascism.