> I doubt most people railing against capitalism are actually against private property. They probably dislike corporatism which only exists as an extension of the government.
I really don't know. In my experience, it can about private property when talking about housing, it is about markets when talking salaries and work conditions, and it's just about having no idea of what capitalism even is and just vaguely pointing at economics the vast majority of the time.
"Capitalism" can be safely replaced with "the illuminati" or "Chem trails" in the vast majority of complaints I hear and read and the message would ultimately make as much sense. There's not a lot of how or why capitalism doesn't work, but by God there sure is a lot of what it seemingly does wrong.
Just because you don't know what capitalism is, doesn't mean other people do not know.
Just because you only read sources from capitalist media platforms doesn't mean there isn't a lot of "how" or "why" capitalism doesn't work.
My main message was about the profit motive incentivizing the creation of addictions for the profit of tech companies. The invisible hand may expand the development of tech, but the visible hand needs to make people addicted and unhappy.
Think a little before you speak, please. Or read a little more.
As bad as things are, the excesses of capitalism pale in comparison to the excesses of communism or fascism. If you have a better system, please present it to the class.
Capitalism is known to have killed multiple billions world-wide.
Nearly all of the poor countries on earth are capitalist. World war 1 was a war of capitalist reorganization, Fascism was a capitalist economic system, therefore WW2 was initiated by capitalist nations. Nearly all wars being fought today are all fought by capitalists on both sides of the conflict. The poorest countries on earth are capitalists. Drug cartels are organization of drug manufacturing and transporting capitalists. Capitalist nations are proven to be the most corrupt countries on earth.
Capitalism has a vested interest in making nations poor for the sake of maximizing profits in resource extraction. Capitalism has waged more war and caused more destruction than any system before it and its only been around for ~400 years.
You really want me to believe that the system that makes money from doing heinous shit is good?
Look into the primary sources behind the things you believe to be true about communism. Many, many are very shaky and were just "cold" war propaganda pieces. I've done exactly that to come to my conclusions.
What I know to be communism, through research, and reading of primary sources, is just the natural conclusion of the democratization of society. People controlling the production they need through councils that they themselves organize into a peoples state.
This post perfectly proves my point, to which you replied "You are displaying your ignorance with pride.".
"Fascism was a capitalist economic system" or "Capitalism has waged more war and caused more destruction than any system before" are utterly ridiculous, evidently false statements. The only way you can ever say these things with a straight face is if you don't have the least idea of what capitalism even is.
I think you may be very shocked when you find out that you are wrong.
Fascism was an ideology developed by capitalist industrialists, specifically steel trusts in Germany. But had its birth amongst financiers in Italy. Henry Ford was a big proponent of fascism. Fascism did not undo any private property relations, it simply was a single party capitalist state. Ownership of companies was still private. If you were not ideologically or ethnically in line your property was taken away and given to someone who was. Any elimination of property rights specifically only applied to the political opposition, which is in line with repressive capitalism, not with socialism.
The control of market dynamics and labor was for the purposes of war and murder, not an ideological component of fascism. A similar thing happened in all countries who were at war: rationing, price controls, labor allocation, etc, but still capitalists.
The axis was specifically an anti-communist alliance through the anticomintern pact. They specifically wanted to uphold private property.
The ONLY reason that one German country had socialist in their name was to fool the masses. It was to appeal to the masses.
WW1 and WW2 were both started by capitalism. And most wars on going right now, feb 2026, are waged by capitalists factions on both sides.
The figures of death attributed to communism are widely known by academics to be absurdly and unscientifically inflated. The black book of communism is not considered history by historians. The gulag archipelago is not considered history by hostorians.
Why dont you see the black book of capitalism anywhere? There are millions of excuses for every death under capitalism. But there are billions of deaths under capitalism... and counting.
You may think I got here through some sort of unhinged bias or just wanting to go against the grain, but no, I got here through asking myself all these questions sincerely and researching them.
>Yes, if you don't follow EU laws prepare to not do business in Europe.
Sure, that's what laws are for. Surely we can still point at those laws and question their motives though.
Spanish PM plainly stated a sort of editor framework of responsibility for platforms. This is the same country that strongly advocates for Chat Control within the EU, also looking for a similar under-16 ban on social media.
So the same government is at once looking to deanonimize social media users, revoke their privacy regarding communications, and to enforce moderation standards never seen before. This is, supposedly, a center-left + left coalition mind you.
Same country that blocks a chunk of the internet when a LALIGA football match is on, too. Lawfully of course. All of this is preposterous, making it the law doesn't make that better it makes it far far worse.
>Unlike the current American administration who condones raids on homes without warrants and justifies violence with lies, this France raid follows something called rule of law.
There was legal warrant and the wikipedia does not mention any lies or rules being being broken. There is nothing "Iffy" on that front.
And, to spell it out, it is also funny to see who was complaining about it back then. On the free speech grounds, not less, literally people trying to dismantle democracy and create autocracy. Russian soldiers and operators, Maria Butina, Medvedev and Elon Musk. Bad faith actors having bad faith arguments.
>The US does not have a "far left" in any significant numbers, and never has. At least not in a self-aware sense.
Are they just disproportionately powerful then? Because the US does definitely have consistent far left trends and movements that overtake the mainstream. The OK hand gesture hysteria is maybe an evident example, but land acknowledgments? DEI statements? Fatphobia? Defund the police? All of these originate from far left positions.
No. Once again you're referring to liberals even if you don't know it.
You might be confused because several forces want you to be exactly that:
1) The right lumps/conflates everything from centrist liberal to far left as "the far radical left" with no in-between, which blurs many lines.
2) Center liberals who want a social media veneer they can feel good about will literally pose as leftists/marxists, but if you look at their other beliefs and behaviors (were they trying to sink Bernie, or not?) then it becomes immediately obvious they're ultimately loyal to the Dem party, and that means center liberals serving capital interests.
But I can't blame you or anyone else for falling for the above unless you've seen enough to know, like following both of Bernie's presidential runs and how he was systematically smeared by both liberals and their corporate media.
Identity politics / DEI / etc are a liberal obsession. Class politics is the focus of the actual far left.
You can take the stance that nobody knows what any of these terms mean I guess, but then the picture gets kind of absurd, left-wing materialism loses all meaning, the church loses all relationship with the right, hell, from that standpoint Donald Trump campaigned as a leftist I guess? He did have a recurrent discourse around jobs and the working class.
> You can take the stance that nobody knows what any of these terms mean I guess
It's not that they don't know. It's that they bend definitions to their advantage depending on what the context dictates. 538 is exactly the kind of outlet one would expect to do such a thing.
It seems the left-right spectrum serves better to confuse than to differentiate, and that the most productive discussions unfold when we talk issues instead.
>Portugal's decriminalisation, (..) prove legal businesses will better and safer provide the same services to the society, and the lesser societal and health cost.
Portugal's success regarding drugs wasn't about the free market. It was about treating addicts like victims or patients rather than criminals, it actually took a larger investment from the state and the benefits of that framework dissolved once budgets were cut.
The same way it would correct typos in a text. It's just a tool, you tell it to find inconsistencies, see what results that yields, and optimize it for verification of claims.
Most people seem to think that holding the "wrong" political stance is a failure of moral character so I'm having difficulty making sense of your point.
They truly don't. That's just part of the alienation.
When the opposition is called evil it's not because logic dictates it must be evil, it's called evil for the same reason it's called ugly, unintelligent, weak, cowardly and every other sort of derogatory adjective under the sun.
These accusations have little to do with how often people consider others things such as "ugly" or "weak", it's just signaling.
I disagree. There's an awful lot of "my position is obviously based on the data, so if you disagree it must be because you want to be evil". (In my opinion, the left does this more than the right, for whatever that's worth.)
If we expand "based on the data" to also include "based on my obviously correct ethical framework dictated by my obviously correct religion" then I figure the score is probably pretty close to even. The weird thing to me is how the far left has adopted behaviors that appear to be fundamentally religious in nature (imo) while fervently denying any such parallel.
I used to think like this, and it does seem morally sound at first glance, but it has the big underlying problem of creating an excellent context in which to be a selfish asshole.
Turns out that calling someone on their bullshit can be a perfectly productive thing to do, it not only deals with that specific incident, but also promotes a culture in which it's fine to keep each other accountable.
I think they're both good points. An unwillingness to call out bullshit itself leads to a systemic dysfunction but on the flip side a culture where everyone just rages at everything simply isn't productive. Pragmatically, it's important to optimize for the desired end result. I think that's generally going to be fixing the system first and foremost.
It's also important to recognize that there are a lot of situations where calling someone out isn't going to have any (useful) effect. In such cases any impulsive behavior that disrupts the environment becomes a net negative.
I really don't know. In my experience, it can about private property when talking about housing, it is about markets when talking salaries and work conditions, and it's just about having no idea of what capitalism even is and just vaguely pointing at economics the vast majority of the time.
"Capitalism" can be safely replaced with "the illuminati" or "Chem trails" in the vast majority of complaints I hear and read and the message would ultimately make as much sense. There's not a lot of how or why capitalism doesn't work, but by God there sure is a lot of what it seemingly does wrong.
reply