Unfathomably based

Capitalism has created extreme wealth disparity, allowed the wealthy to buy our politicians and pass whatever legislation they want, and is quite literally killing our planet.

What a stupid fucking question.

I get that humans are too stupid to move past capitalism, but can we at the very least pull our knuckles off the ground and accept that capitalism has to be heavily regulated to reasonably function?

I keep reading one or another form of "regulated capitalism is the goal" or "in small countries work" or "the problem is people". Regulated capitalism sounds great, but it is like saying "sanitised street pond". You can try and sanitise it all you want but in the end it is by its very design gonna be an undrinkable mess.

There is no great moment of the US. Even when you had wealth, it was on the backs of the rest of america, both the country's second class citizens, and the rest of the continent. You're obsessed with empires, meddling in other countries' governments, controlling resources in other countries, glorified violence, dominance, and individualist hero idealism. Even compared to other powers like China, count how many military bases you have vs the rest of the world. You've been historically bullies, obsessed with hustle, profit over life, status and personal achievement. Every time you have an increase of wealth is at the cost of someone else. The problem is you have lived so long in this bubble of entitlement that you have no idea how it impacts everything around you. Somewhere there's a totalitarian regime where they'll murder people with guillotines, and people will rush to buy stocks in companies selling sharp blades. There is no ethic in capitalism, capitalism does not care about people.

as an american anti capitalist, i agree with so much of what you just said and still want to punch you in the mouth.
we became obsessed with glorified violence after SAVING EUROPE FROM THE FUCKING NAZIS. we began to worship our individual heroes after PRODUCING SO MANY OF THEM WHILE FIGHTING THE FUCKING NAZIS. we got into meddling in the affairs of other countries because of our paranoia over preventing A GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR APOCALYPSE, a consequence of FIGHTING THE GODDAMNED NAZIS.
europe produced the problem and we solved it. the spoils of that war just happened to be the entire fucking world. sorry for winning. maybe we should all focus on KICKING NAZI ASS AGAIN.
- A slight issue with your comment about meddling in affairs of others, that started long before the Cold war. Lookup what we did in Guatemala in the early 20th century and the Philippines. And Hawaii. Check out the book Overthrow A Century of Regime Change. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_(book)
- Please be satire

A US politician that doesn't deepthroat coporation everytime he opens his mouth? Guard him well, these types tend to end up comitting suicide via a bullet to the back of the head.

we call that “The Clinton.”
How uninformed do you have to be to think he's a presidential candidate?
- Kind of a rude way to correct a person
- We would be so lucky.
- Whoops, you're right. Corrected.
- God please please please please

Capitalism requires consistent growth and most non-economists think it should be left unregulated. However I distinctly recall one person recently who pushed to add government controls and even said they didn’t care about the stock markets and what companies felt was best, and instead were doing what they felt best benefitted Americans.

So why is no one asking Trump the same question when he’s clearly going against (American) capitalism?

You can practically hear the phonk.

I hear it brother
Those cow bells echo and resonate with me

This guy fucks...

The Bourgeoisie

And also his wife and apparently that also became news somehow
- How can that become news?

capitalism wouldn't be so bad without the corrupt bloated shitheel scumbag fucking christofascligarchs

Capitalism grantees they rise to power.
- systematic removal of regulations and consequences has enabled greedy corporate dickbacks to sieze power.
  systems are made of people. To make a better system, you need better people.
- They always do, regardless of the economic system.
- it sure does with small government.
  remember there are countries that enjoy capitalism without the 5 ring circus shitshow we have going on in the states
Capitalism ultimately rots into authoritarianism through wealth accumulation.
so … capitalism wouldn’t be so bad without … capitalism. Remember: all of what we see is bog standard capitalist formula.
Capitalism is always bad, because capitalism is where an ownership class who does no work leeches from a working class who owns nothing.
Don’t confuse free markets with capitalism, they’re different.
- Genuine question. How do you have free markets without the existence of capital and the pursuit of its accumulation?
  The definition of capitalism per the dictionary is:
  an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
  How do you have free trade without people who own things trading them?
Corruption is an inherent part of capitalism
Capitalism is the accumulation and hoarding of wealth at all costs. Exploitation and abuse are foundational concepts. There is no ethical or moral version of such a system, and so no version of it that “wouldn’t be so bad.” It is immorality and evil distilled into a code of conduct.
- There's a reason capitalism is essentially counter to the teachings of all major world religions, many of which are extremely authoritarian in their own way.
  One aspect of modern capitalism is predatory loans, which every Abrahamic religion has writings against.
  It's pretty telling most religions would not go as far as "poor people can go fuck themselves" despite being used to control people through fear over millenia but the end game of unchecked capitalism is truly as simple as "poor people can go fuck themselves"
That’s what capitalism is.
Anarchists still believe in trade.
corrupt bloated shitheel scumbag fucking christofascligarchs
AKA the inventors and vanguard of capitalism.
I used to believe this...
- Yeah... and for sure there are gradations which are worse or better than what we have now. Like more tightly managed capitalism is better, but there is no way to actually keep the demon capital from escaping containment forever.
  You need to nullify the incentives to accumulate capital.
- unfortunately no one cares what anyone believes. especially not the capitalists who own us. the only thing that matters is what we do. which, so far, has been nothing.
That's saying a grilled cheese wouldn't be so bad if it didn't have cheese. At that point it ain't a grilled cheese anymore so why even try to defend it in the first place? Just eat some god damn bread
Capitalism only works when heavily regulated, because human greed is a cancer to everything it touches.
- This — if capitalism could be contained by government it would do nicely, but it ends up corrupting government so that it cannot function.
- That regulation is antithetical to capitalism. Yes, it's the only thing that keeps it functioning in a reasonable manner, but that's just an indication capitalism is bad.
  Yes, less capitalist capitalism is better than more capitalist capitalism. Maybe we should just have none.
- That's the problem. The system prioritizes wealth accumulation above all else. When you build a society that views wealth as the highest state of being then those regulatory systems will eventually be bought out.
  There may well be no such thing as a sustainable regulated capitalism, especially when we've normalized the monetization of everything.
Gee I wonder why a system that rewards people for being corrupt … oligarchs keeps producing corrupt … oligarchs?
capitalism is amazing as long as it not allowed to run rampant. stricter regulations and safety nets (usa) would make the whole risk/reward game of capitalism more palatable imo
- Salt and pepper make dog shit more palatable too. Instead of seeking to make bad things palatable, can we try something different instead?
- Please tell me, when exactly has capitalism been amazing?
- Yup. Most things go bad if not fixed and out of control. Moderation is key. The problem is the people in charge don't want a good system. They want a system they can control.
  They will do anything but a fair system because then they would lose control.
- Yes let's set strict global rules on pricing of goods and a living standard of wage as well as rent capped at 10-20% income based(not real estate). Then companies can be taxed to provide health insurance and housing for everyone. Finally we can ensure 97+% employment by setting full time to 20hr a week with 3mo vacation mandatory minimum. I suppose in that world Capitalism sounds A-OK to me.
  Simple small changes no biggie
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh
Honestly, I think it’s a bad idea for a democratic politicians to say capitalism is bad as a blanket statement. Capitalism with controls is great. Unchecked capitalism is bad.
Also, capitalism and social safety nets are not mutually exclusive. We can have capitalism as our economic core while still providing universal healthcare.
Any democrat that just comes out and says “capitalism bad” as a blanket statement is going to have a much harder time in the general election.
- Capitalism with controls is great
  Please, can you give me the historical example you're thinking about when you say this?
- Any democrat that just comes out and says “capitalism bad” as a blanket statement is going to have a much harder time in the general election.
  This is because the entire political establishment is aligned with capitalists, not because there isn't popular agreement with that statement. But I'm not sure if that's true anymore for a Dem politician.

It's still called capitalism, but in reality it's drifted way off course. What we've got now looks more like a corporate oligarchy. The free market only applies to small players, big banks and mega-corps get bailouts, write policy through lobbyists, and face no real consequences for failure. It's capitalism in name, but the rules are rigged. Real capitalism doesn't have a reset button for the rich and a bootstraps lecture for everyone else.

This is real capitalism. Real capitalism does not work
- I mean it does. At least as far as it can. I live in America. And aside from the shit we're going through right now and the myriad of issues that we have as a country and society our standard if living is very hight. Not the highest of course but very high never the less. That standard is made possible in large by capitalism.
  I believe Rand called it reasonable self interest, not every billionaire is an oligarch, not every rich person wants to rent out a god dammed city for their wedding like some cartoonish villian.
  Penn Jillette said that he believes most people are good and I believe that applies to the rich as well.
  Corporate oligarchy can be argued as a natural out come if capitalism run rampant I agree. But to equate the two as the same... They're just not.
We now live in the age of techno feudalism. The mega corps aren’t producing and selling actual things they are just rent seeking and extracting wealth from their fiefdoms.
No, what we have is capitalism. There has been no veering off course. You don't know what capitalism is.
- Actually, I do. It has a definition, one that all of you seem eager to twist and reshape into whatever suits your narrative.
  In reality, you’re the one who doesn’t understand it. You’re so far removed from the mechanics that you can’t even see what’s actually happening. Instead, you just blame “the system” and an amorphous blob of people you call “the rich.”
  It’s the worst kind of idealism, screaming at windmills while pretending to have some enlightened grasp of “what’s really going on.”
  You’re no different in rhetoric or philosophy from a MAGA supporter—just flipped to the opposite pole.
Free market capitalism has always been an ideological myth. The definition of capitalism has more to do with ownership of the means of production than anything about free markets.
- Capitalism hates free markets and will always strive to monopolise them.
- You're the first person to correctly use and define the word capitalism in this entire discussion.
  Your analysis and critique is absolutely correct.
The only way that capitalism could ever work would be to remove any generational wealth and make it only about personal achievement. When you die it all goes back to the state(assets and money).
- Removing all inheritance was one of the items Marx suggested in The Communist Manifesto.
- I've always toyed with the idea of a wealth cap. 1 billion dollars is the max amount of money any one person or entity can make. Anything after that is either reinvested, split amoung the workers (not the board of directors) or payed a taxes to the government.
  One thing is for sure. We don't need billionaires.
- Even then, rich parents can pay for better education and tend to have better connections. Doing it that way would mostly just fuel nepotism in companies and encourage people to find loopholes to pass on most of their wealth before they die.
- So your saying give ppl who gucked up this system more power? That's crazy man
This is arguably one of the core components of capitalism that many capitalists choose to forget. Simping for the rich and powerful is not, itself, capitalism - capitalism is an innovation only enabled by massive government intervention in economic matters. Capitalism was not born with the first exchange of goods between people, capitalism was born with the rise of complex legal and financial instruments in European states in the 16th-17th century limiting the use of feudal and financial power.
The issue is that capitalist elites, like all prior elites, are not actually ideologues, whatever their claims. Capitalist elites are elites first, and capitalists second, if at all - the goal of elites is to preserve and enhance their own power, even at the expense of the system that enables them.
Capitalism is a touch worse at preventing elite accumulation of power than other systems (socialism), and a touch better than others (actual feudalism), but ultimately any examination which forgets that, no matter how ideologically 'pure' the analysis is, will always miss the fucking trapdoor to a more despotic and unfair system right beneath our feet.
Never trust the powerful. Any cooperation should always be conditional.
- This take “capitalism is an innovation only enabled by massive government intervention” misses the mark. It doesn’t define capitalism; it just assumes we all agree on some vague historical version of it.
  Capitalism, at its core, is private ownership, voluntary exchange, and profit driven markets. Government intervention isn’t part of the definition it’s something that’s been layered on top as capitalism evolved. Yeah, modern capitalism what we see post 16th century definitely grew with state backing: contract enforcement, corporate law, banking systems, even colonial muscle. But to say capitalism only exists because of government intervention is just historically lazy.
  What really happened is the state and capital developed hand in hand. One didn’t invent the other. They just learned to exploit each other really well.
Nah thats capitalism buddy, at its core. The point is the rigging, in order to profit as much as possible. Corporate Oligarcy is the ineveitable outcome of capitalism, because capitalism creates its own destruction after a certain point of wealth consolidation, after which point the system can no longer function as is after all the cannabalizing of its own sectors.
What we've got now looks more like a corporate oligarchy. The free market only applies to small players
Tell me, how free was India to develop in free competition against England in the 19th century? How free was Congo to compete against Belgium? Oh, wait, you're only talking for a white minority, I see. When exactly was capitalism better, when English children lost their fingers trapped in machinery in coal-powered factories in England in the 1850s and died at 30-ish years of age? Maybe it was better in 1917, when the ambitions of capitalism and imperialism triggered WW1 and ground tens of millions of lives? Or was it good in the 1950s/60s when the US murdered millions in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Korea through the most horrific bombing campaigns just because they didn't want to be capitalist? What good capitalism are you exactly talking about?
- I'm sorry what? I didn't say anything about "good capitalism" or any kind of warfare or committed atrocious or any kind of racial issues.
  In fact I am denouncing capitalism in my comment.
  It's like you just picked a random line to quote then went off on some idealistic rant about literally nothing.
  Jkf was assassinated, there's micro plastics in our food, I took a painful shit last night = therefore capitalism is bad!
  Strawman Fallacy Oh, wait, you're only talking for a white minority, I see.
  False Dilemma What good capitalism are you exactly talking about
  Appeal to Emotion English children lost their fingers... died at 30-ish
  Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Capitalism and imperialism triggered WWI.
  Guilt by Association US murdered millions... because they didn't want to be capitalist.
  Red Herring The entire comment diverts from discussing actual merits or failures of capitalism as an economic system by listing atrocities as if they are direct and exclusive outcomes of capitalism, avoiding systemic analysis.
  Loaded Question When exactly was capitalism better...
  Your entire comment is nothing more than idealistic mental masturbation, what a waste.
In capitalism the goal is to use the money you have now to help you get more money in the future. If you can spend a few million dollars training your workforce or spend a few million buying corrupt politicians, and the latter nets you 10x the return in 1/10 the time, the system will reward those who make the immoral choice. And if you are working for a publicly traded company, your shareholders and board of directors will probably fire you for not using all technically-legal tools at your disposal.
I was recently thinking that the proponents of unregulated capitalism make it sound like natural selection for corporations. And it kind of does sound like that, until you think about it a little bit. It would be like an animal that grows more mouths as it finds more food, and if it eats even more food it can do magic shit like edit its own DNA and warp the laws of physics. Oh and of course it would be immortal, able to die from injury or starvation but never old age. (and if it did die from injury or starvation, it's probably so that its owner can sell its kidneys)
It's capitalism in the same way the Soviet Union was communism. No matter the theory, this is how these systems play out when real humans are in charge. That said, humans can clearly do better than the US system. Western Europe is full of counterexamples of semi-capitalism done better.
- I think capitalism could have played out differently if it were started from a different point. We started with aristocrats and never got rid of them.
  Communism in the Soviet Union started through revolution which is often co-opted by strong men authoritarians. It ended up in a dictatorship. If communism were attempted in a different manner, then it would end differently.
Unfortunately like every system we have tried to do at scale, capitalism favors concentration of power over time and being gamed by some folks or others. Humans love to surrender power to the powerful up until some breaking point.
So corporate oligarchy is an expected long term result of capitalism. Unfortunately some other type of oligarchy is the outcome from alternatives once the "wrong" players figure out the rules of the game and how they can break them as needed to get an advantage over those following the spirit of the rules
Hey, just FYI, you're arguing on Lemmy. Most people here get their political opinions from memes and Twitter screenshots. One third are tankies, one third are people that agree with tankies minus China/Russia support, and the one third are actually people that read the news, understand history, and at least somewhat educated or more.
- "everyone is an idiot except me and people who agree with me."
- ☹️ ya man... I know... I'm beating a dead horse.
  Sometimes I just respond so anyone that does read it will see someone fighting against the idiocy.

This appears to be the Mamdani interview by Erin Bernett on CNN, during which the word capitalism or capitalist was mentioned exactly zero times. EDIT: I gave up too soon, it's 8min in and I was looking at an older transcript from three days ago.

LINK HERE

Her questions were actually pretty good because they set Mamdani up to give amazing answers, ~~instead of the stupid tribalistic bullshit in your fanfiction.~~ except for that question so dumb I thought it was bullshit.

That's not true, at 8 minutes he literally gets asked that exact question and responds no. Watch between 8 mins and 8:06 of the link you posted...
- Ah, you're right, mb. I watched the first 6 minutes at 1.75x speed and then gave up and read a transcript of another interview which was apparently from 3 days ago.
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/vik8HbWnZ68
She asked him "Do you like capitalism?" word for word.
- Goddamn that man is well spoken.
- Not to mention being "Breaking News" on the ticker immediately after with his answer in the back half of the interview.
  So it's also written on the screen multiple times.

Omg, did you just darken his beard again? Somebody call Fox with this breaking story.

Is this sarcasm, I truly don't understand what this comment is trying to communicate
- Yes, it's sarcasm lol I'm referencing a recent story where Fox News artificially darkened his beard to make him seem more Muslim and therefore more threatening.

We need a word that describes "questions that cannot be answered with a simple yes/no asked with the explicit intent to make a sound bite for stupid people." Germans do this kind of thing all the time. Some compound word like "stupid dummy-faced shitheel question." Studu-fashtion.

It's called a loaded question, but that doesn't really have the weight of how destructive this has been to society
I'm enjoying how easy it is to use ratfuck to describe using proceduralism to try to manipulate democracy, maybe something along those lines?
- ratfuck to describe using proceduralism to try to manipulate democracy
  Haha, I never thought to define that term, it just comes to me instinctively whenever Democrats or Republicans are mentioned (particularly this second Trump administration): Democrats ratfucked their constituents in 2024, Republicans ratfucked the country in 2025.
It's called a false dichotomy, actually. Basically pretending there are only two sides to an argument (capitalism good, capitalism bad) when there is more nuance. Capitalism good, but... capitalism bad, but... this isn't capitalism... etc.
In this case though, isn't "no" honest, fully correct, and merely politically unpopular? It's like if they asked a Republican about gay marriage and he said "no".

DOWN WITH THE CAPITALIST CANCER

What a chad

Do you like shovels? What an inane question. Capitalism is a tool. It works for some things and not for others. If you want to achieve the things it doesn't work for, you don't use it and use a better suited tool instead.

It's our fault for "using capitalism" guys

This Adam’s guy is handing out stone cold stunners?

.. He said, while fully benefiting from it

Poe's Law strikes again. It's such an astonishingly stupid argument that I can never tell when someone's joking when they say it.
- The guy you’re replying to also thinks musk is a smart guy…
ShartDickPrime here, live from the glue factory! I've been bagging hard so I can hit you with the hottest and freshest shit takes in the Fediverse!
Keep on huffing, you crazy diamond.
Huh, what an ignorant peasant. Thou proclaimeth that thou doeth not like toiling away all thine day in the fields under the scorching sun and giving most of the produce as tributes to thine lord. But, thou use the protection of the lord. Hypocrisy, I tells thou
“You say you hate capitalism, but then you still exist in a world where it is utterly unavoidable, what a fucking hypocrite!”
Fuck off.
No ethical consumption under capitalism.
Curious...

Children think of capitalism as a system. Economists think of capitalism as a tool.

So it's just going to be children arguing against children with no one even trying to learn anything?

Capitalism, by definition, is a system not a tool. "Free market" may be a tool. "Private ownership of capital" may be a tool. "Free contracts of employment between individual economical agents" may be a tool. But the conjunction of those things is what defines the system of capitalism.
- Like I say, children think of capitalism as a system. The right wing believes this too. Children arguing with children.
  Capitalism can co-exist with socialism in the same economic system. Happens in many countries. Just Americans can't make that work.
Jesus fuckin’ christ, you always have the most undercooked, read-the-first-half, dumb as fuck middle schooler interpretation takes on everything. You need to stop hammering nails halfway in and actually do some understanding of concepts.
- Back at ya.