Opportunism vs Capitalism

I thought I would get this off my mind before the truth about anything becomes totally irrelevant.

I noticed throughout the discussions on this board people conflate opportunism with capitalism. The purpose in promoting that conflation is so that the unethical practice of opportunism can be associated with Western capitalism - demonizing capitalism to promote socialism.

• Capitalism - an economic and civil rights system wherein individuals can obtain ownership of property and business
• Opportunism - the social practice of taking advantage of a situation void of consideration of others

The first of those two is not only reasonable but natural and ethical. I’m sure all creatures seek to gain for themselves - else they die. The second of those is most often unethical because people can opportunistically take from others needlessly and selfishly.

Both capitalists and socialists are found practice opportunism. When anyone gets enough power to take from others with impunity the temptation to do so overwhelms far too many. And those gain even more power until there is no one left.

Socialists, having usurped media outlets, freely place the blame of opportunism on capitalists - no one notices. So the evil of their opportunism is blame shifted onto capitalists and capitalism - the natural enemy of the socialists.

On top of that what is called crony capitalism (socialism in disguise) yields the appearance of capitalists gaining too much wealth in the hands of too few who then use it to oppress the masses (almost the very definition of socialism).

So capitalism gets a bad wrap in both ways while all along it was really just that unethical and immoral urge to be opportunistic that creates the upper class elites oppressing a socialist world.

Funny thing. The Republican party may have been the party of old big money, but the Democrats are the party of new, even bigger money with Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, and the rest of Silicone Valley. The lefties who believe in socialism support the opportunistic, lefty capitalists who are making them poorer in their socialist pocketbooks without connecting the dots. Seeing the irony from that perspective is amusing. How do they reconcile that? By never becoming aware of their own stupidity.

Reminder:

You can stop reading right now if you refuse to accept that, in fact, the truth about everything must be perfectly aligned with his own authoritarian dogmas.

Sure, others might come in here and dispute his distinctions. Or they might critique capitalism from any number of conflicting political perspectives.

And, perhaps, he’d even welcome that.

But make no mistake: There is the one and the only rational distinction to make between them. And this must be true because in preaching to the choir here he confirms it.

Just another rendition of this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], some are taught or come into contact with [through their upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life that embraces capitalism. Ayn Rand, as likely as not.

2] Over time, they become convinced that this perspective on capitalism expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to them as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about capitalism; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy of capitalism with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about capitalism with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own regarding capitalism as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending capitalism has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.

For others, it might be Communism instead.

That leads to debates like this: economicshelp.org/blog/5002 … apitalism/

Debates where both sides can make reasonable arguments based on sets of assumptions regarding the “human condition” itself.

But for the objectivists among us, acknowledging this is taboo. After all, the whole point of being an authoritarian defender of one or the other is to have this Whole Truth in which to anchor the Real Me.

And ILP is bursting at the seams with them, isn’t it?

u think zuckerberg is a leftist?

what about the mercers and peter thiel and elon musk and sheldon adelson and the kochs and paul singer and ken langone and i mean should i keep going

Does a roo shit in the outback?

What’s your point?

The point is that ecenomic ideology on the national level has been transcended by the international corporations , which have started the whole process or transforming the realignment of basic tenets regarding

The present political plays point to the confusions inherent in the economic undertow reflecting through conventional social attributes.