You’re so far off the deep end that it doesn’t make sense trying to rebut you, so I ask questions that have easy answers to try and discuss something more productive. As usual with folks who think they’re very smart though, you don’t want to answer because it’s not on your terms.
Take a class in politics. Or hell just read a book.
You’ve done nothing but argue some pedantic point of the origin that doesn’t really have anything to do with my original point, I don’t see this going anywhere so I’m not going to waste my time with it
I think you’re partially right. Because the end goal of capitalism is fascism. But then again fascism often does consist of monopolies. So glass half full.
Can you quote a capitalist writer from before the 19th century who linked capitalism to fascism as a goal?
You’re talking about “goals” but what you more likely actually mean is something like “inevitable end state” so perhaps you can count up the number of capitalist states which are currently fascist?
Fascism typically usurps capitalism when it does arise due to rampant corruption, so there is no longer a free market, even if the country was capitalist on the way there.
You talked about his original point, that was literally his first post. That was his Original Point. That monopolies are the end goal of capitalism.
Which they absolutely are, you’re just legitimately wrong. Capitalism inevitably ends in monopolies that’s why we have to break monopolies to artificially constrain capitalism. I mean honestly I’m flabbergasted that this has to be explained to you. Cuz just look around you. Name one industry in which that’s not happening. It’s inevitable.
Unregulated capitalism will lead to monopolies, but when capitalism was first developing, it was not a conscious choice to try to turn everything into monopolies, because people didn’t have that level of foresight.
Later, when people really started thinking about economics, capitalist thinkers realised this danger and that it had to be avoided for capitalism to be useful.
His claim was universal though - it wasn’t about unrestricted, unregulated capitalism, it was about all forms.
Who invented Capitalism?
You can make a very good argument that it was Adam Smith, with Wealth of Nations.
It was influential, but capitalism had essentially already come about in a limited form.
And his stated goal was competitive markets forever, not absolute monarchy with more steps. People dunk on conservatives by quoting that book.
Ah, so nothing of substance in response so I can chalk this discussion up to bad faith on your end.
You’re so far off the deep end that it doesn’t make sense trying to rebut you, so I ask questions that have easy answers to try and discuss something more productive. As usual with folks who think they’re very smart though, you don’t want to answer because it’s not on your terms.
Take a class in politics. Or hell just read a book.
You’ve done nothing but argue some pedantic point of the origin that doesn’t really have anything to do with my original point, I don’t see this going anywhere so I’m not going to waste my time with it
Your original point was a nonexistent strawman caricature of capitalism.
You think the concept of monopolies is a non-existent strawman character of capitalism?
I don’t think monopolies are the “end goal of capitalism”, nor the rest of what he said.
What a weird question to ask in the context of the conversation. I noid you genuinely think I said something that implied that?
I think you’re partially right. Because the end goal of capitalism is fascism. But then again fascism often does consist of monopolies. So glass half full.
This is another pointless im13andthisisdeep take.
Can you quote a capitalist writer from before the 19th century who linked capitalism to fascism as a goal?
You’re talking about “goals” but what you more likely actually mean is something like “inevitable end state” so perhaps you can count up the number of capitalist states which are currently fascist?
Fascism typically usurps capitalism when it does arise due to rampant corruption, so there is no longer a free market, even if the country was capitalist on the way there.
You talked about his original point, that was literally his first post. That was his Original Point. That monopolies are the end goal of capitalism.
Which they absolutely are, you’re just legitimately wrong. Capitalism inevitably ends in monopolies that’s why we have to break monopolies to artificially constrain capitalism. I mean honestly I’m flabbergasted that this has to be explained to you. Cuz just look around you. Name one industry in which that’s not happening. It’s inevitable.
Unregulated capitalism will lead to monopolies, but when capitalism was first developing, it was not a conscious choice to try to turn everything into monopolies, because people didn’t have that level of foresight.
Later, when people really started thinking about economics, capitalist thinkers realised this danger and that it had to be avoided for capitalism to be useful.
His claim was universal though - it wasn’t about unrestricted, unregulated capitalism, it was about all forms.