Iâd call it corporatism. Capitalism would not subsidize losses.
EDIT: to anyone disagreeing, having a central bank printing money to let banks not get bankrupt is the exact opposite of capitalism. It's literally communism in the sense of having a planned economy in the most important market of all: money. And then abusing that to socialize losses of private companies.
It's all bullshit meant to distract us. To divide us, into groups. What group thinks what or so on. At its core it's exactly that, the rich and powerful versus the working class, first of all, and then after all the future generations that they mean to exploit in order to magnify their profits. More and more and more, bleeding everyone and everything dry, like a cancer. That's the future of what's going on right now with extremism and corporate worshipping.
Oh, shit, I forgot about global warming. But that's another story.
The entire system developed on this planet was either designed or evolved to elicit a hierarchy of competition among groups, in which Darwin pronounced as 'survival of the fittest'. Even the human group was subdivided into races and skin colors to produce vying or a struggle to survive.
My friend, survival of the fittest was debunked by Darwin himself.
In fact, he never came up with the phrase. It was coined by Herbert Spencer.
Darwin adopted it later as a synonym for natural selection to please his colleague Alfred Russel Wallace, but he privately found it problematic.
Darwin never defined "fitness" as being the biggest, strongest, or most aggressive. To Darwin, biological fitness meant the ability to adapt to a local environment and successfully reproduce.
While the public used the phrase to justify brutal selfishness, hyper-competition, and social inequality, Darwin explicitly argued against this view. In his later writings, he demonstrated that for many species, especially humans, cooperation, sympathy, and altruism are the ultimate survival traits.
In his 1871 book The Descent of Man, Darwin actively de-emphasized individual physical dominance. He mentioned "survival of the fittest" only twice, but wrote about sympathy 95 times. He observed that the most aggressive or selfish individuals often died out because they lacked community support. Darwin explicitly noted:
Communities which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish the best, and rear the greatest number of offspring."
TLDR; âsurvival of the fittestâ is a misattributed and misunderstood tag line that Darwin himself actually rejected.
The purpose of a system is what it does. "ThAtS NoT REaL --" is a pointless argument regardless of which C a person is arguing for. People are more concerned with getting a pat on the back for proper use of terminology than doing the uncomfortable mental labour of recognizing that... all of this, all of it, is broken.
Call it whatever you want but it is a logical outcome of capitalism.
Capitalism leads to accumulation of capital, capital has a political power, that political power is used to consolidate the capital which leads to further growth of capital...
Nope, logical outcome of capitalism would be decentalized power under private cities and communities. What youâre saying is the outcome of any system that works under an institution that monopolizes power (the government)
What youâre saying is the outcome of any system that works under an institution that monopolizes powerÂ
And what is the function of government hmmmm?
The capitalism can exist BECAUSE the government can enforce the private property rights via the monopoly on violence.
Government is nothing more but an entity which enforces a certain structure in society with violence.Â
private cities and communities
Arguably situation would be even worse since those cities would function like governments (monopoly on violence), but they would be much weaker than the capital.
That's not the outcome. That's a mid point. One of those cities is going to outcompete the rest, leading to... that's right, a monopoly of power owned by one or more private individuals who do not answer to the population.
Democratic governments are representatives of the people, they must answer to their will.
What you're suggesting is the exact opposite. Citizens with zero power.
Your argument is essentially that you don't like that you are beholden to the rest of society, and have a power fantasy where you own a city or country like a dictator.
There is no such thing as a single, transhistorical "economic law" that applies to all societies.
What exists are laws of motion specific to each mode of production.
Feudalism had its own internal logic (land tenure, tribute, serfdom); ancient slavery had its own; and capitalism has its own (the law of value, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, accumulation).
To say "capitalism is economic law" is like saying "feudalism is political law". It erases history and treats a very recent, specific system (only a few centuries old) as a natural, eternal fact of human existence. Capitalism is proven to be historically specific in that it had a beginning and will have an end.
its present in any economy
This confuses commodity production (making things to exchange) with capitalist production (making things to extract surplus value/profit). Yes, almost all societies have had some form of trade, markets, or exchange. But capitalism is not markets. Capitalism is a specific social relation in which:
The means of production (factories, land, machinery) are privately owned by a capitalist class.
The majority of people are propertyless and must sell their labour-power as a commodity just to survive.
The entire purpose of production is not to satisfy human needs, but to generate profit (surplus value) through the endless accumulation of capital.
A peasant selling a chicken at a medieval market is not "capitalism." A state-run factory in a planned economy that produces for social use, not profit, is not "capitalism." Markets can exist within socialism or communism; capitalism cannot exist without wage-labour and private ownership of the productive apparatus.
including communism.
No, just no.
We explicitly define communism as the abolition of capitalism's foundational pillars:
Abolition of private property in the means of production (replaced by social or common ownership).
Abolition of wage-labour (labour becomes freely associated activity, not a commodity sold to a boss).
Abolition of the law of value (production is organised according to human need and rational planning, not according to exchange-value, profit, or market fluctuations).
In a communist society, there is no capitalist class, no exploitation of labour for surplus value, no stock markets, no CEOs extracting unearned wealth, and no "fiduciary duty" to maximise profit. You will still have distribution of goods, even exchange of some items, but that is not capitalism â just as having a knife does not make you a surgeon. The social relations are what define the system, not the mere presence of money or trade.
Uh, no. Capitalism absolutely will take any money or asset available to it. Capitalism isn't some principled ideology that would never take government money, it's just "acquire all the money". So, when capitalists subvert the government, the government is just another revenue stream.
Arguably corporatocracy is a subset of corporatism as corporatism is the organisation of societ around corporate bodies, which obviously for profit business is one such body.
But most coporatism favours other groups such as trades groups or workers groups, for sure.
Not really. Corporatocracy sees corporations competing with one another over who can bribe the most politicians. Corporatism sees corperate bodies negotiating the economy.
I think we're going to end up in a very semantic argument but I'd put that more into Kleptocracy than Corporatocracy while keeping the latter of as aform of corporatism.
But we're deep into poorly defined concepts or at least ones which differ wildly in that definition.
All fascist regimes are corporatist, most are corporatocratic but only a few are fully kleptocratic (at least not from the general population).
And if the data centers, AI models, and chip fabs - all of which are involved in circular leveraged investing - fail to meet their implausible demand forecasts, there will be a collapse.
They will say, "If we don't keep going, China will beat us!" They will say, "Noone could have predicted this." And they will say, "We are the only ones with the foresight to guide us forward," despite having just fallen flat on their faces regarding investment foresight.
And they will ask for the largest bailout in history.
Tell everyone about this, now. If a collapse starts, everyone needs to start contacting their congresspeople immediately to demand that the billionaires do not get bailed out. Everyone needs to be aware of this in advance, or they're going to take trillions from the commoners and give it to the billionaires whose fault it will be.
You can tell everybody about this. In fact, even if everybody you tell believes you. It will not change a thing.
I don't believe there's a point of return with the current system. Modern day pitchforks are needed, if you want any form of true justice. The majority of those billionaires lack morals, so fear is the only thing that might drive them towards the good side of history.
And when I say billionaires, I also mean the majority of the multi-millionaires.
It may not change the government's response, but in that case, it would foment the anger that is needed for the other thing you suggest.
If the masses see it coming, and speak en masse, and are rejected - it will be a more poignant betrayal. Each additional person who sees it coming adds to the potency of the reaction.
When it pops, its going to take everyones pensions and other savings with it. And its far too large for government bailouts at this point. But those at the top of the "AI" fraud will no doubt have extracted hundreds of billions before that happens.
And of course, if by some miracle someone suddenly works out how to actually deliver any of the bullshit claims, no-one is going to have a job or any money anyway...
Billionaires using their influence over government to make government bail them out is regulatory/state capture producing an oligarchic or plutocratic outcome.
People will disagree on how much capture is actually happening versus governments choosing bailouts for other reasons (systemic risk, unemployment prevention, etc.).
I mean, look at who consistently votes and look at who established the nation 250 years ago. Then think about who has since upheld and enforced those laws. The rest of us have had to fight for a seat at the table, and too many of us take it for granted. There's a status quo, and it's intentionally structured to protect those with wealth, property, and access. When the working class, the poor, women, people of color, the LGBTQ+ community, persons with "disabilities," and other historically oppressed groups of people don't meaningfully participate to eliminate that status quo, then we continue to perpetuate a system that was built to benefit those who put its wheels in motion centuries ago.
We actually do not live under capitalism because of the restraints put on profits and the various pieces of the pie that must be shared under this system like SS, Medicare, local taxes, etc
Capitalism's greatest achievement may be convincing millions that if they're struggling, they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires waiting for their turn.
And let's not forget the individual bailouts - Trump's multiple bankruptcies, Elon's billions in government welfare, taxpayer funded stadiums for billionaires to profit from.....
Kensianism specifically draws differences between forms of govenrment spending and the benefit of those. Transfers to poor people being the best use of government money to recover a failing economy and business hand outs being much less useful and certain business hand outs such as military spendning being absolutely the worst.
276
u/Hashsum88 7h ago edited 5h ago
capitalize profits, socialize losses. Welcome to modern era capitalism
edit: i meant âprivatizeâ profits!