When did the Purge become realistic intelligent science fiction literature?

[Madner Kami]

Um, monopolies, attacks on unions, and use of force are VERY capitalist. That's kind of the problem.

You get all of that in any form of economy, so they're not intrinsically "capitalistic" in that sense. The impact on the economy is, what makes them anti-capitalistic in effect, as they work counter to capitalist ideals and maxims. Monopolies and Unions prevent free negotiations, competition and innovation, for example, things in which's absence capitalism can't function (properly).

[hammerofglass]

I don't think I've ever seen Capitalists do the "no all the bad things were because they did it wrong, true X has never been tried" bit before. That's usually the Communist's shtick.

[Madner Kami]

I don't think I've ever seen Capitalists do the "no all the bad things were because they did it wrong, true X has never been tried" bit before. That's usually the Communist's shtick.

"True X" has always been tried before. The trouble is, that any X is an idealized system that has the notorious tendency to not follow the idealized maxims, because of the human factor. Either because of a failure to account for it or a deliberate sabotage through it.

E.g. Monopolies are directly counter to the free market and thus inherently anti-capitalistic. Monopolies still happen, because there's nothing preventing that from happening within the capitalist system and since there's nothing preventing it from happening, it is going to happen. You might avoid that for a while, because people always largely try to follow an ideal, but there are always some individuals who are looking for ways to play the system. Et voila, monopolies.

E.g. Unions prevent the free negotiations between a labourer and a means-of-production owner. However, unions are clearly necessary, because individuals can and will be played against each other by the mop-owner, due to a lack of means of ensuring a fair and equal negotiation from the side of the individual labourer, except through politics or unions.

As long as a system leaves room for exploits, someone will use those exploits at some point, even if the use inherently harms the system or even runs counter to the intention of the system. That is true for every system and is not a "No True Scotsman"-argument. It's just human nature.

And as for "unions and monopolies are capitalistic features", no they're not. May I remind you of the citizens of Rome literally walking out of the city as a form of protest against the Patrician's rule multiple times during the time period of ~500 to 290BC? Those were literal labour strikes and very definitly a form of unionization. Or the guild-systems of medieval Europe? Very definitly both monopolies and unions at the same time. Or the French Mercantilism during Louis XIV's reign? Very definitly a state-monopoly. And so on and on.

[CharlesPhipps]

I don't think I've ever seen Capitalists do the "no all the bad things were because they did it wrong, true X has never been tried" bit before. That's usually the Communist's shtick.

As an anarchist, it's not a DEFENSE in capitalist's case, but me pointing out that all of their rhetoric is based on bullshit. Because all of the claims of how capitalism works other than exploitation ala "Free trade, hard work, negotiation, blah blah shit blah blah" are absolutely undermined by the fact that they work to stack the deck ridiculously.

BIOSHOCK is an interesting case in the fact that while its ostensibly about Objectivism, it's actually a bigger critique of capitalism in general as an ideology.

Andrew Ryan GENUINELY BELIEVES in the free market as a legitimate good for society RIGHT UNTIL it turns against him and then he runs screaming to the government (him) for protection.

[CharlesPhipps]

Um, monopolies, attacks on unions, and use of force are VERY capitalist. That's kind of the problem.

Basically, we're slowly coming around to the fact that modern (and probably all previous societies) include the massive contradictory factor of ideology where whole swaths of the political process are people arguing in bad faith. JD Vance for example had a debate performance which largely consisted of lying about everything he stood for. This isn't me taking a side against the GOP, biased as I am, but simply pointing out he says X knowing it's a lie and that he'll do Y. That A is B and B is C because he knows his policies would never get approval from voters. So water is dry and the sun is green.

Which is a long winded way of saying capitalism was never at its most effective than when it was tightly regulated in the fifties and in Europe.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I argue that it really isn't, and that we should give alternatives a chance more often instead of using the CIA to kill the people attempting them.

I've also straightup seen pro-capitalists argue that the people deserve their stupidillions. Hell, read my sig.

More often? What does more often mean when you’re talking about replacing capitalism.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't think I've ever seen Capitalists do the "no all the bad things were because they did it wrong, true X has never been tried" bit before. That's usually the Communist's shtick.

And when Vivek yells about democrats being anti capitalist it sounds like nothing but propaganda to my ears. Granted it’s a somewhat valid or at least safe accusation on your own side, blue or red. But it’s completely nebulous to the goings on of an economy.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I don't think I've ever seen Capitalists do the "no all the bad things were because they did it wrong, true X has never been tried" bit before.

I've seen it done in this very thread. "Monopolies aren't true capitalism!" Monopolies are inevitable under capitalism, because the goal of capitalism is to maximize profits.

[CharlesPhipps]

I've seen it done in this very thread. "Monopolies aren't true capitalism!" Monopolies are inevitable under capitalism, because the goal of capitalism is to maximize profits.

They're also when it ceases to be capitalism because when that happens, it's just absolute control.

Mind you, that is because if you don't have competition then it's not capitalism but just an oligarchy.

A lot of people don't think of capitalism that way.

They define capitalism as any sort of trade or monetary system.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I've seen it done in this very thread. "Monopolies aren't true capitalism!" Monopolies are inevitable under capitalism, because the goal of capitalism is to maximize profits.

They're also when it ceases to be capitalism because when that happens, it's just absolute control.

In what way does it cease to be capitalist? It's still maximizing profits to benefit shareholders. It doesn't stop being capitalist just because it's blatantly unfair.