Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
Amazing video by Technology Connections. It’s a long one, but don’t miss his 30 minute angry rant at the end.
I do not understand what this adds to the concept of capitalism other than introducing the term “social darwinism”.
There is no difference between “the aesthetics” of capitalism and its actualization, and neither base a capitalist’s actions in regard to benefitting society beyond “the market”. Capitalism is simply the current method of accruing power for someone to push their personal ideology on others. It just happens that the most effective method to exploit capitalism is to reject any sense of empathy or consideration for anything external or internal, especially flesh and blood humans because they are the only real threat to your power.
Let me try to rephrase this, so that maybe it makes sense. The point I’m trying to make is that social-darwinism is not an extension of capitalism, they’re two different things but with aesthetic overlap.
Capitalism aims to optimize work, by naturally rejecting inefficient ways to do things. The production line wins over the workshop. It’s about things and processes, not about people directly.
Social-darwinism is about rejecting people. To refuse people the space to thrive or reproduce. To push them to the edge of society until they die from exposure or suicide or simply that their bloodline ends when they can’t support their families over the course of generations. Thus the noble classes dominate by right, and whoever is unsuccessful deserves to die and rot.
I see no point in making a differentiation between mechanism and the methodology to which that mechanism enables the most exploit.
I disagree with your thought that capitalism optimizes work. It either ensures work is done many times over in parallel (competition) or arbitrarily based on the whims of the owner class (olig/monopoly), and that alternative/more efficient means are snuffed out where a more profitable option exists. It’s an unstable and inefficient system that relies on civil expenditure (bail outs, infrastructure, etc) to function.
The capitalist system that requires you labor to for food and shelter is exactly the same mechanism that rejects people, pushes them out, exposes them, and props up the wealthy class. Your “Social Darwinism” is a fundamental consequence capitalism, not an unrelated ideology that just happens to exist simultaneously. Capitalism drives people to do [more] evil. Then they rationalize their behavior to protect their ego and power.
I’m not making the claim that capitalism optimizes work, it’s the claim that liberals make. I think it’s important to actually study and understand what other people believe, and as I stated before the idea of capitalism does not allow destruction or monopolization of natural resources, or to block others from using natural resources in a responsible manner (which was the core problem with feudalism).
The point is that billionaires are not liberals, and they don’t believe in capitalism.
I’m not arguing whether capitalism is a flawed theory of economics which naturally leads to either fascism, social darwinism, or some third thing. I’m arguing that billionaires actually do believe in social darwinism, which is a different thing than liberalism or capitalism.
No, I’m literally giving examples of how Adam Smith defined the foundations of capitalism, which both liberals and so-called conservatives normally favor as their preferred economic theory, and how these foundations contrast with a different philosophy favored by different people.
Adam Smith didn’t invent capitalism. It’s not a philosophy, it was an economic system that emerged from certain material relations. Liberalism, and fascism, are just two of the ideological frameworks that can reproduce capitalism’s material base and both of which emerge from the material base of capitalism.
They use the aesthetics of capitalism to intellectualize and explain why we should not question their supremacy.
In reality, capitalism does not in any way justify monopolization of natural resources, or the large-scale destruction of the environment.
Capitalism is the ideology of thr petit-bourgeoisie, not the actual bourgeoisie. They are just social-darwinists.
I do not understand what this adds to the concept of capitalism other than introducing the term “social darwinism”.
There is no difference between “the aesthetics” of capitalism and its actualization, and neither base a capitalist’s actions in regard to benefitting society beyond “the market”. Capitalism is simply the current method of accruing power for someone to push their personal ideology on others. It just happens that the most effective method to exploit capitalism is to reject any sense of empathy or consideration for anything external or internal, especially flesh and blood humans because they are the only real threat to your power.
Let me try to rephrase this, so that maybe it makes sense. The point I’m trying to make is that social-darwinism is not an extension of capitalism, they’re two different things but with aesthetic overlap.
Capitalism aims to optimize work, by naturally rejecting inefficient ways to do things. The production line wins over the workshop. It’s about things and processes, not about people directly.
Social-darwinism is about rejecting people. To refuse people the space to thrive or reproduce. To push them to the edge of society until they die from exposure or suicide or simply that their bloodline ends when they can’t support their families over the course of generations. Thus the noble classes dominate by right, and whoever is unsuccessful deserves to die and rot.
I see no point in making a differentiation between mechanism and the methodology to which that mechanism enables the most exploit.
I disagree with your thought that capitalism optimizes work. It either ensures work is done many times over in parallel (competition) or arbitrarily based on the whims of the owner class (olig/monopoly), and that alternative/more efficient means are snuffed out where a more profitable option exists. It’s an unstable and inefficient system that relies on civil expenditure (bail outs, infrastructure, etc) to function.
The capitalist system that requires you labor to for food and shelter is exactly the same mechanism that rejects people, pushes them out, exposes them, and props up the wealthy class. Your “Social Darwinism” is a fundamental consequence capitalism, not an unrelated ideology that just happens to exist simultaneously. Capitalism drives people to do [more] evil. Then they rationalize their behavior to protect their ego and power.
I’m not making the claim that capitalism optimizes work, it’s the claim that liberals make. I think it’s important to actually study and understand what other people believe, and as I stated before the idea of capitalism does not allow destruction or monopolization of natural resources, or to block others from using natural resources in a responsible manner (which was the core problem with feudalism).
The point is that billionaires are not liberals, and they don’t believe in capitalism.
I’m not arguing whether capitalism is a flawed theory of economics which naturally leads to either fascism, social darwinism, or some third thing. I’m arguing that billionaires actually do believe in social darwinism, which is a different thing than liberalism or capitalism.
I think you’re conflating liberalism with capitalism, which isn’t really accurate.
Capitalism can exist without liberalism, and this does lead into fascism, but that’s still capitalism.
No, I’m literally giving examples of how Adam Smith defined the foundations of capitalism, which both liberals and so-called conservatives normally favor as their preferred economic theory, and how these foundations contrast with a different philosophy favored by different people.
Anyway, I’m done beating a dead horse here.
Adam Smith didn’t invent capitalism. It’s not a philosophy, it was an economic system that emerged from certain material relations. Liberalism, and fascism, are just two of the ideological frameworks that can reproduce capitalism’s material base and both of which emerge from the material base of capitalism.
At a certain point of wealth inequality under capitalism it becomes more efficient to make everyone else poorer than to acquire more wealth.
Yeah, and that’s certainly an effective strategy from the very moment an inequality exists at all.