That analysis explained why libertarians could not look to capitalists for support, that only the petty bourgeoisie and the peasants would be interested in libertarian politics. This probably struck many of you as odd, so this article will expand on that point.
This was so weird and off I just had to share.
It must be understood what is meant by capitalism. The socialist understanding of capitalism is not free markets. To them, capitalism is not the “ism” of the capital market, but of the holders of that capital. It would be more accurate to call the socialist conception “Capitalistism” - rule by capitalists.
😶
The free market is toxic to capitalists because it‘s an equalizing force between people with unrealized economic potential and those who have already achieved theirs.
It goes on and on like this. WTF?
Don’t ever think that morality or ethics will stop big business.
:hahaha:
This exactly. The secret to why this doesn't happen is because it is actually an incredibly inefficient method of capital accumulation, with finance (or abstracted) capitalism/lordism supported by the state being a much more efficient and obscured method of exploitation. You don't feel as exploited because your exploitation has been so abstracted as to be difficult to identify at all.
The modern state apparatus in the U.S. does a fantastic job of helping that abstraction by providing most of the cheap services needed to run the economy while also dumping surplus value into the finance markets whenever their generally unregulated speculative processes completely bust parts of the economy.