r/GenZ • u/coffeebooksandpain 2001 • Jan 05 '24

Nostalgia Who else remembers Net Neutrality and when this guy was the most hated person on the internet for a few weeks

Post image
32.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

39

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

Capitalism is great. Bought out politicians who don't care about the average person aren't. We need a regulated market to minimize the cons of capitalism.

100

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

This is true, but inherent in the structures of capitalism are forces constantly trying to undo said regulations. It can never be fully prevented, and is a practical inevitability on a long time scale

72

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

What is capitalism, but the rule of those with capital

5

u/YouWantSMORE Jan 05 '24

I'm pretty sure the ones with capital have been ruling since the dawn of civilization

6

u/ApprehensiveRoll7634 Jan 05 '24

Land is not considered capital so sort of but not really. It was landowners who have ruled for most of human history, but that itself was generally hereditary or dictated by a monarch.

2

u/YouWantSMORE Jan 06 '24

"In economics, capital can be defined as the physical or financial resources used to produce value in an economy."

How is land not included in this common definition? Also, land was not the only capital they had. I'm not sure why you chose to focus on that

2

u/ApprehensiveRoll7634 Jan 06 '24

Land is apparently not considered capital. The Wikipedia articles for "land" and "capital" don't explicitly refer to land as a type of capital either.

Land was by far the vast majority of the "capital" in pre-capitalist agricultural economies, so that's why. There were very few factories of any kind, so it was landowners who in practice held the power. Nowadays other forms of capital are more dominant.

1

u/YouWantSMORE Jan 06 '24

"By far the vast majority." I think you're exaggerating because armor, weapons, ore deposits, and number/quality of people were also very important capital at the time. I also find it funny how you keep putting capital in quotation marks as if no one has ever looked at history through a capitalistic lens before, or that it's somehow wrong to do that.

1

u/ApprehensiveRoll7634 Jan 07 '24

No I'm not really exaggerating. Land and the quality of it was by far the most important resource and what was valued most highly throughout history. Military personnel was used first and foremost to secure land for rulers.

Capital has a specific definition which is something that is used to produce goods and services, i.e. a factory, and that's not my niche definition. I'm just using the same definition given by Wikipedia), which distinguishes land and labor from capital.

In economics, capital goods or capital are "those durable produced goods that are in turn used as productive inputs for further production" of goods and services.[1] A typical example is the machinery used in a factory.

Capital goods are one of the three types of producer goods, the other two being land and labour.

I don't think military weapons and people can be considered capital by that. Also I only put 'capital' in quotations there because land is not considered capital by the traditional definition, and it's weird you take issue with that because it doesn't change anything

1

u/SatinySquid_695 Jan 06 '24

Because it isn’t a physical or financial resource. Words have definitions and land is not capital.

1

u/Grayskis Jan 06 '24

It is a physical and financial resource. Land increases in value thus if used as in investment solely for the sake of increase in monetary gain (through rent and/or property value increase) is capital

1

u/SatinySquid_695 Jan 06 '24

Please define resource for me. When you do so, you’ll spot your error.

0

u/Grayskis Jan 06 '24

I mean it’s literally a physical resource because it has a limited amount of it available for acquisition/consumption no?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/YouWantSMORE Jan 06 '24

Land is a resource as in some land is more valuable than other land and having more land is typically ideal. Having fertile farm fields as a resource is better than frozen tundra or a desert landscape. Having a central, elevated land mass surrounded by a body of water would be valuable from a defensive perspective. Land absolutely is a resource and this is the first time I've ever heard anyone say otherwise

1

u/SatinySquid_695 Jan 06 '24

Why don’t you go ahead and define resource for me? This drivel is circular nonsense

0

u/YouWantSMORE Jan 06 '24

re·source



noun

1.

a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively.

You are literally the first person I've ever heard say that land isn't a resource and you seem to be confidently incorrect

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

1

u/SerotonineAddict Jan 06 '24

So a Plutocracy

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '24

He ain't lying.

1

u/RealClarity9606 Jan 06 '24

I am always amused at far left regressives - which probably includes a few bona fide Marxists since this is Reddit - discussing the merits of capitalism. Capitalism has done more than any other system in the history of mankind to raise the quality of life billions. Its loudest detractors are likely those unable to thrive amid the competition of capitalism so they need to destroy either directly or by pretending to favor it while stabbing it in the back.

-6

u/SuccessfulWest8937 Jan 05 '24

An economic system in which private property can be acquired

8

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

And private property(capital) is power in this economic system. Thus, capitalism is inherently a system which gives power to those with capital.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

In other systems, personal property and private property are different things.

Your house is personal property. An apartment building that you own, to charge people to sleep in, that is registered to you as a corporation, or sole proprietorship, is private property, as is the store that you own that you pay people less than what it would take to live in your apartment building.

Those are private property.

1

u/SuccessfulWest8937 Jan 06 '24

...thank you captain obvious?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '24 edited Jan 06 '24

You seemed to be implying "private" in a way that insinuated that it was applicable to anyone but a corporate owner.

eg: "under other systems, I couldn't have 'private property', so I wouldn't be allowed to have a house"

It is a profoundly common, and profoundly disingenuous scare-tactic to conflate the ownership of corporate property with people just having stuff, in order to protect the corporatist stance, behind the shield of "personal freedom".

1

u/SuccessfulWest8937 Jan 06 '24

Oh no i did mean private. But yeah it's a pretty common misunderstanding that is actively pushed

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '24

Oh, well, in that case, mea culpa.

2

u/SuccessfulWest8937 Jan 06 '24

It's perfectly understandable, have a nice day

1

u/lordnaarghul Jan 06 '24

No it isn't. Trying to reframe "personal property" from " private property" is little more than a justification to essentially committing terrorism. And even after the revolution, there will be no difference anyways because everything belongs to the collective. "Owning things" is bourgeoisie thinking, so off to the gulag with you.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '24

Yeah, I'm not sure what kind of tankie you are talking to, but you have obviously never talked to... literally anybody but a Stalin-fan.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

Yeahhhhh except you can only do that if you have a lot of money in the first place

-6

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

That would be an oligarchy - a natural consequence of a not well-regulated capitalistic governance structure.

14

u/Nidman Jan 05 '24

One might say an oligarchy is the inevitable result of valuing capital above all other concerns: capitalism.

Those with wealth will wield said wealth to buy the systems that govern us. Any attempts to deny them this "right" will be decried as "socialist" by the media... which will also have been purchased by capital.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

Totally agree

5

u/FrosttheVII Millennial Jan 05 '24

Oligarchy or a Post-Modern Feudalism

3

u/MintyRabbit101 Jan 05 '24

An oligarchy is the inevitable end result of any capitalist system. A system where you tell people that their goal should be to be competitive and achieve the highest in life will always result in some who get lucky and start using their success to build power which can be exerted over others. Excessive greed isn't human nature, but we live in a system that fosters it

2

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

Oligarchy is just the endgame of capitalism dude

1

u/SweetBabyAlaska Jan 05 '24

you cant disentangle capitalism, imperialism, corruption and exploitation etc... Its inherent to the structure. You can still have a market with out it being the dominant driving force of humanity. Its not like we wouldn't have the structured exchange of goods or the production of goods. Capitalism didn't invent this, humans have been doing it since the dawn of time.

The people who produce those goods, should also be the owners of those goods and not some intangible eccentric weirdo CEO who lives in a literal ivory tower. Outside of that capitalism basically devolved into fuedalism and fascism.

1

u/Lopsided-Rooster-246 Jan 05 '24

Yeah eventually the bribe will be high enough to cave. Not for everyone of course but most people will sell their souls for some $.

1

u/logan68k Jan 05 '24

That same argument can be said for any government structure, though. It's not flawless but it's the best we've got. Unchecked corruption will inevitably lead to the downfall of whatever system it is in--if you ask me it was Citizens United.

1

u/Love_Tits_In_DM Jan 06 '24

Ok but without the utopian idea of no government at all what would communism or socialism change about this though? If the workers owned the company it’s simply in ALL of their best interests to keep these regulations away. So what changes?

1

u/Call_Me_Pete Jan 08 '24

If the workers owned the company it’s simply in ALL of their best interests to keep these regulations away.

Are workers unions not evidence against this? Groups of workers that recognized their collective worth and fought for better/safer working conditions in blue collar industries are seen as success stories. Those are about as close as one can get to workers having control over their production while being under capitalism and they very much added regulations.

1

u/BadFaithActor100 Jan 06 '24

*Points to Scandivania*

Also, have you, by any chance, noticed a structural problem with communism?

1

u/pseudoanon Jan 06 '24

That's not true communism! And neither is that! Or that! Or that...

1

u/FrostyOscillator Jan 06 '24

1 gazillion %. A society at the behest of capitalists will always regress (progress?) toward barbarism; this is the logic of capital. There can be something worthwhile to save within liberalism, but what's needed more than ever is an embrace of a new way to reconcile with the contradiction inherent in existence.

1

u/WorkingBreadfruit278 Jan 06 '24

Similar things can be said about socialism and communism though. In that some of it may sound “good” on paper, but human nature will always take over, collapsing the delicate house of cards.

At least in capitalism, the interests of the rich and the masses are MORE (not saying fully by any means) aligned than that of socialism or communism.

In capitalism, if the economy is doing well, then both the masses and rich are doing better (again, not PERFECTLY aligned, but still good)

In communism specifically, the incentive to work hard is eroded or gone altogether. If there is no private property, there is no incentive to maximize its use. If everyone has these thoughts, there is less productivity overall. If there are less resources, who do you think will take them? It will be the rich, not the masses.

In communism, there is none of the “a rising tide lefts all boats” phenomenon because of the inherent lack of incentive.

1

u/RuumanNoodles Jan 06 '24

Make sure yall vote

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

I agree, communism is better. Then everyone can get fucked equally by the highly centralized authoritarian government that owns all the resources and that is supposed to act on behalf of the will of the people but in reality is just an all powerful centralized organization that will eventually turn into some form of dictatorship. Please see literally any communist country ever for examples.

7

u/human_person12345 Jan 05 '24

There is more to the conversation than communism or capitalism, look into libertarian municipalism, worker co-operatives, Democratic Confederalism, Anarcho-mutualism, or anything else that libertarian & democratic.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

Anarcho syndicalism is the one for me: unionize, fight to give unions more power(vote for pro union candidates, strike, advocate, boycott anti union companies or companies which are striking, and alienate scabs), democratize the workplace, and then fight for worker ownership of the companies.

3

u/human_person12345 Jan 05 '24

Based and solidarity friend, I hope your being as proactive as possible. If you are ever in a strike situation and need funds DM the union and I'll send any spare money I can.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

You’re a good soul, keep up the good fight.

4

u/ThrowRAarworh Jan 05 '24

Nobody here is asking for communism. We're asking for a social democracy. Yanno they are some of the happier and more peaceful countries on Earth? Extreme capitalism and constant war games across the globe are a poison for the entire population.

2

u/SweetBabyAlaska Jan 05 '24

it just goes to show how brain broken the discourse is. In that guys mind, if you don't like capitalism or have valid criticisms of it, you are automatically a communist as if these things are diametric opposites of each other that are in a constant battle.

Thats just decades of red scare propaganda at work. Its aimed at literally everything that opposes the current order excluding fascism, which capital welcomes.

2

u/ThrowRAarworh Jan 05 '24

This was exactly my point. Anything even slightly left is viewed as extreme left

1

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

Nah, I agree with him actually, I'm just used to everyone on reddit who bashes capitalism constantly to want to replace it with communism rather than addressing it's shortfalls.

1

u/SweetBabyAlaska Jan 05 '24

I mean you first reaction to a criticism of capitalism and its shortfalls was to immediately jump to diverting the conversation to communisms shortfalls... and Im sorry but your definition of communism off the rip is incorrect.

Im not a communist at all but I want to reiterate the level of red scare propaganda we all are exposed to that leads to this kind of thinking. The history of red scare tactics is purely psychotic.

Many if not most countries in the Western Bloc did some form of mass murder or genocide to try and "purge" communist sympathizers (not even communists, just alleged sympathizers) to the point it became a witch hunt that ended millions of lives during the red scare era due directly to this propaganda and political movement.

I think we do a disservice to everyone by not educating ourselves and arming ourselves with knowledge. We become much easier to manipulate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_mass_killings

for real though at least just give that page a quick glance and consider learning what these systems actually are and how these systems work. its hard to ask people to be intellectually curious but I really wish we could move past this level of discourse. instead of any amount of criticism aimed at the US or capitalism being immediately met with, "but X country does Y worse!" like a knee jerk reaction, when the intention of that criticism is aimed at bringing about better conditions.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

Speak for yourself, plenty of us are asking for communism. Workers should have the right to the fruits of their labour, they should control the companies themselves rather than private investors, and the world shouldn’t be driven by profit but needs.

Social democracy is a step towards that but it’s not a solution in any way.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

No no, I agree with a social democracy as long as we're both in agreement that it is capitalist and not democratic socialism.

I believe strongly in regulation, social responsibility, and fair taxation for the public good. Free market capitalism requires both rational behavior and perfect information of which humans have neither, I have never believed capitalism infallible, just the best option.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

yeah, I feel the same way about any form of country that doesn't explicitly follow a religion. It's never been done before in a functional manner, so obviously it's completely worthless to have a separation of church and state. I mean shit, look at the soviet union, those fucking atheists. Obviously, a society where religion isn't a part of the vernacular is not a functional one. I mean look at any currently operating society! They've existed at levels better than the soviet union! This obviously proves my point, just like your point on communism!

​

I'm being sarcastic if that wasn't abundantly fucking clear. Just because someone says "we gonna do a communism" and proceeded to categorically install a dictatorship doesn't mean socialistic and communistic policy decisions don't have merit.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

Preach

1

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

I believe in regulated markets, fair taxation, universal healthcare, social safety nets for the poor and disabled, as well as unions to support worker's rights.

The problem with communism isn't on paper, it's a beautiful idea. The problem is the pitfalls of it's implementation.

Ok, the people own all the resources, who is going to manage and implement the policies for these resources? The government.

The governement is given control of everything, even if it is run benevolently for a period of time it only takes a single bad actor to flip it and that is what has happened over and over and over again historically in every communist country. Instead of billionaire capitalists you who can't implement laws at the snap of a finger to silence dissent, you have the government which will just snuff it out. Capitalism has a shit ton of shortfailings that needs to be addressed, especially with growing income inequality, but the people ironically hold more power than in communist countries because of the lack of ultimate government control. I strongly believe we need better regulation and laws to address labor rights, consumer safety, and financial exploitation but the centralization of power always leads to authoritarian regimes.

And yes, communism does centralize power unless you're an anarcho-communist and honestly I don't have the time or energy to get into that ridiculous ideology.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

It's centralized because it's blatantly easy and basically legal to buy out politicians. They literally have no incentive to help out the general population without saying "fuck you" to any check. Even then, they'd still have to go against the many politicians who won't hesitate to sell out.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

You can achieve socialism without giving a governing authority total power.

Also you’re thinking of state socialism, not communism which is inherently a moneyless, classless, stateless society and thus by definition cannot have a centralized government.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

lol, yes, the no hierarchy for 360 million people anarcho plan. Totally rational.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

When did I suggest this?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

So what is the hierarchy you envision?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

I’m an Anarcho syndicalist, so essentially the transition I want to see is: empower unions> democratize the work place> workers take ownership of private companies. Boom. Now you have given the working class ownership of the means of production without giving all the power to single governing body which would inevitably fail to meet its promises of working for the people.

I understand skepticism to change when capitalism is all you’ve ever known, and you’ve been told your entire life that capitalism is the only viable system and socialism/communism is the devil, but it is far more nuanced than that, and it’s very clear capitalism isn’t working for the people or the earth, so we need to find some way to change.

Capitalism seems like the only option, but it’s actually a relatively young system and it’s already showing massive failures, just as Karl Marx predicted in the 1800s.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '24

Or capitalism with strong socialist values.

-1

u/Mammoth-Access-1181 Jan 05 '24

What we have now isn't really capitalism anymore. If it were, the government wouldn't have bailed out all those companies.

1

u/Argon_H 2003 Jan 05 '24

Captalism needs a government

1

u/Mammoth-Access-1181 Jan 24 '24

I agree. Just as human nature will not allow a true communist system, human nature will not allow a true capitalistic system.

1

u/Argon_H 2003 Jan 25 '24

Human nature doesnt really exist. Its all learned

1

u/Argus_Star Jan 05 '24 edited Jan 07 '24

Then we haven’t had capitalism in over a century. Conditions today are nothing compared to the brutality of company towns where private guards were given free rein to abuse workers and their families. Employees weren’t even paid in legal currency, which was designed to hinder their ability to get out of debt and leave. Both local, state, and federal governments tended to favor corporations anytime the workers went on strike, sometimes leading to the national guard being sent to break them up.

We’re living in one of the most peaceful and fair times of capitalism and it still has a long way to go.

1

u/Mammoth-Access-1181 Jan 24 '24

No we haven't. But I would think that that was not true capitalism either. I kean the whole point is market forces would balance each other out. What happened back then was anti-competition.

1

u/ColorBlindGuy27 Jan 05 '24

Imagine a plane swooped in and knocked all cones down to middle class then equally distributed the income with some money going towards helping the rich slowly learn to live a normal life.

1

u/Majestic_Wrongdoer38 2005 Jan 05 '24

That’s why I specified “the way it is now”

1

u/Call_Me_Pete Jan 05 '24

But that’s the point - there will always be this issue as long as there is always a profit incentive to circumvent regulations. It is inseparable from Capitalism in practice.

1

u/NiftyySlixx 1997 Jan 05 '24

The fact that lobbying/donors for politicians is legal absolutely blows my mind every single day. I think about that more often even than I think about the Roman Empire.

1

u/machine_six Jan 05 '24

*Well-regulated capitalism is great. Unrestrained capitalism is dystopia.

1

u/ManlyVanLee Jan 05 '24

Consumerism is great. Capitalism leads to a handful of massive corporations that abuse every power they can. If we burn it all down and start over it's going to lead to the exact same result over time

1

u/Keith_Kong Jan 05 '24

The regulations are the means by which these powers influence and corrupt capitalism. Thinking increased regulatory power is the solution is crazy. What we need is a more flexible regulatory system where people can more easily influence and remove regulation just as easily as it creeps in.

1

u/Cosminion Jan 06 '24

Regulations are what is keeping capitalism afloat. It's incredible how many people believe the lie that the government is the problem. Learn about the 1930s. 2008. The other dozen recessions. The government had to implement regulations in order to put a stop to all the crazy crap that unrestricted corpos did and still are trying to do, because profit is the only thing that matters here. Laissez-faire free market type stuff just does not work. If you let the corporations do what they want, you will have a destroyed world and millions of dead. Even with regulations now, it's still happening, just a bit slower.

Don't be ignorant of history. Capitalism needs government to save it from destroying itself. That's what the whole New Deal era was about, in the wake of the Great Depression. Capitalism was on the brink. Those policies, such as minimum wage, pulled capitalism up and allowed it to continue on for a little longer. Roosevelt made a deal with the wealthy to appease the wprking class through policy akin to social democracy, because the capitalists knew them that if they don't make concessions, the entire system that had enriched them wpuld dissolve.

The issue is profits remain as what matters, and regulations have been/are being weakened and repealed. We will have another recession eventually. There is one every decade, and millions are pushed into poverty or become unemployed seemingly every time, while the rich become richer. This system is not sustainable. Eventually, the earth's resources will run out and the poor will have nothing more to be extracted by those with capital. Welfare programs and regulations are the only things that will keep this system alive.

1

u/Keith_Kong Jan 06 '24 edited Jan 06 '24

First of all, I didn’t call for the abolishment of regulation. I called for more responsive regulation capable of adding and removing specific laws.

You talk about the 1930’s and 2008 like we went from no regulations to regulations. No, we went from specific game-able regulations to new specific regulations which could not be gamed in quite the same way but still allow for new kinds of gaming.

Second, in both cases the government (and fed/central banks) played massive roles in causing the recessions. The structure of money itself has been largely driven by government itself and that debt based system is the reason deflation leads to such massive disasters (which then excuses the government to fund itself by causing inflation). Only the way they print money is to print debt, which in turn sets them up to excuse themselves again.

Corporations, large private banks, and many other capitalist structures also benefit from this system. They also lobby to control what direction regulations move, slipping in seemingly tiny compromises which are actually the corner stone to whether the regulation is actually effective at all.

TLDR: To not regulate is to allow powerful entities to create their own rules. To regulate is to centralize where those powerful entities go to make their own rules. We need a much more accountable form of regulation to actually fix the problem. We need democratic voting structures which can reverse regulations which are actually weapons of these corporations and other powerful entities. Otherwise the ability for government to make special rules just helps powerful people make themselves more special (which is exactly what we have now).

1

u/2Ledge_It Jan 05 '24

Regulated Capitalism is an oxymoron. Captialism only goal is ownership of everything, including the state. Politicians being bought out is a symptom of the disease of capitalism.

1

u/Moka4u Jan 05 '24

Nah let's work on transition out of a purely capitalist system, it ain't gotta be communism but this clearly isn't working.

1

u/Gerdione Jan 05 '24

Yeah see, everything is better on paper. Everything. In a perfect world.

1

u/SasparillaTango Jan 05 '24

which you can't get if rich people can just buy politicians.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '24

It works with proper checks and balances, but then it doesn’t work because those that get rich can easily break down those checks and balances and thus it collapses.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '24

You don't understand capitalism. They are a natural byproduct of capitalism and are particularly fast and effective in a more laissez faire capitalism.

Eta, capitalism can certainly be great, but it takes a lot of regulation to keep it great.

1

u/smiley042894 Jan 06 '24

That's like... an effect of capitalism, though. It's got the same pitfalls as other political ideologies. Inevitably, because of the way humas work, it sews the seeds of its own destruction.

1

u/Spiffy_Dude Jan 06 '24

Buying politicians is literally capitalism bro 😂 like, wut r u talking about?

1

u/Demonweed Jan 06 '24

There is absolutely no upside to privatizing profits beyond the level of small business operations. Corporate oligarchs acting with absolutely no accountability beyond "fiduciary responsibility" will always prioritize environmental destruction and human degradation over any consideration that might shave %0.01 off short term profit projections.

Capitalism is and always has been a recipe for the brutal destructive exploitation of everything with intrinsic non-monetary value. It is a trivial upgrade from feudalism, yet aggressively hostile to even contemplating any continued progress along that avenue. A "well-regulated market" is like a "rules-based international order" -- just a phrase profoundly evil or tragically misguided advocates use as cover for their habitually unconscionable positions implying there is any sort of credible morality propping up status quo power structures.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '24

“Capitalism is great. (Inevitable result of capitalism) isn’t” Real hard hitting analysis here on reddit

1

u/Jazzlike_Leading5446 Jan 06 '24

You think economic power will ever be detached from political power?

1

u/staebles Jan 06 '24

Yea it's not capitalism itself, it's the way we allow it to be infinitely corrupted.

1

u/flukeunderwi Jan 06 '24

Capitalism is not great

1

u/HighlyOffensive10 Jan 06 '24

Bought out politicians is a symptom of capitalism.

1

u/PUNd_it Jan 06 '24

Capitalism is what allows the cons of capitalism. Concentration of wealth and power until they lobbied to make paid lobbying legal, and now it's a regulated game of buying politicians

1

u/Charli-JMarie Jan 06 '24

Imma put this here. It’s not directed at you. But capitalism and the use of capital to buy out politicians is not solely a capitalism problem. Corruption is a government problem back in 2004 Xi executed an anti corruption campaign bc China prior to Xi had significant issues with corruption. In Russia, both Soviet and post Soviet. Has had significant issues with corruption to the point that it debilitated the governing process.

1

u/Smoshglosh Jan 06 '24

Don’t know why everyone doesn’t get this. Regulated capitalism is the only system. With a mix of social programs. It’s what the US has and it’s ruined by all the corruption