Does capitalism give more power to the people? People (leftists and some nazbols) often talk about how free market capitalism leads to corruption and tyranny of the elites/oligarchs, but capitalism has always lead to more power to the people, it’s a bottom up approach, whereas socialism is from top-down. Socialism is what leads to oligarchy and corruption.
Compare historical England and Netherlands to historical Russia and Ukraine.
Capitalism is the ideology of the jew
Map of corruption in public sector worldwide. Of course the capitalistic countries are less corrupt then Latin America or Russia and China.
In autarky or socialism power resides in the state/oligarchs.
communism is burocracy dictatorship
Only Monarchism gave power to the people since the dictator to not be killed must do what the people want
Any ideology can be used by jews for fucks sake.
The British and Dutch and protestant Northeastern Europe embraced capitalism, Spain stayed feudalistic (eventually corporatism) Russia eventually became communist/socialist.
Of course today it’s been corrupted, but for much of its early stages capitalism succeeded. Efficient economy, meritocracy, improved laws, etc.
Spanish empire had gold, British empire had capital
I know this isn’t contrarian/edgy enough but still true
Sneed's Feed & Seed (formerly Chuck's). Also, "Bart's Fart & Shart" doesn't make any sense because the store wasn't called "Feed & Sheed" under Sneed's ownership so stop posting it.
>"normal people added together have more influence than the rich"
>1,000,000 normal people show up
>$30,000 average yearly income
>$30 billion total
>1 jeff bezos comes along with $200 billion
Maybe it was true once.
All your jewish ideas are dumb and your cousins and bots posting here are worthless.
No, It gives power to the money. The invidual doesn't matter. Only money.
Look at this map of South American wealth.
You see some states with autarky, some with outright socialism, and free market capitalism.
Notice how Chile has wealthiest adults
So you have capitalistic societies that gives power to money (consumers, middle class folks, responsible tax payers, etc)
And then you have societies like China (and Russia to an extent) that gives power to government ((((oligarchy)))
...
Money is God in this society. Any billionairs can be consider a King.
God bless capitalism, you don’t have to be the son of an king or the son of a commissar or the son of a senior party member, just be hard working, diligent, save responsibly.
Meritocracy, social mobility, this is how America and North Western protestant Europe operated for centuries. Yes people like Jeff Bezos abuse it, but still the most efficient system, it gives people incentives to work hard.
What incentive do people have in feudalistic Latin America/Spanish America?
power corrupts everything. you're not going to find a silver bullet. I'll take markets over everything.
>people have always had the power
>people have always been disorganized
>divide the people and they will never unite against a small elite group that control the broad strokes of society'
every time
Strength used to be the only defining characteristic to decide the leader. Now. It's the invisible force that cannot be grasp. Any lucky mofo can be a King. Capitalism eventually lead to Chaos.
Everyone bitches about companies like amazon having too much power in a capitalist system. But 10 years ago they said the same thing about Wal-Mart. And 10 years before that they said the same about Blockbuster.
The capitalist mega rich is a transitory class. Without cronyistic protectionism, corporate welfare & regulating competitors out if the market... the problems solve themselves. A business gets too big, ossification takes hold, it collapses under its own weight. The means of production are then redistributed at an affordable price to people who can make better use of them as everyone scavenges the bones of a fallen giant.
Even if you never join the capitalist class ot unlock the full value of your own labour (for better or for worse)... you still reap the rewards of a society that functionally crowdsources everything & allows bad ideas to fail. Worst case scenario, you lose your job out from under you because your boss had a shit business & you have to find another one if you haven't saved up enough money to retire yet.
Respond, why is Chile by far most successful?
Richness isn't success. You all die in the end.
The Spanish Empire and Ottoman empire had your mindset…
Warrior aristocracy, saying fuck you to middle class merchants.
Meanwhile the Dutch and British had other ideas…
>picrel
Picrel is enough for this entire thread.
You have British capitalism that motivated its population, provided incentives, meanwhile Latin Americans had no incentives, just warrior class and priest class dominating, thus giving rise to caudillos.
Now look at Canada/USA and compare to Latin America
True Wealth is Immortality. A life without Death. The ultimate goal of survival. Only The first Emperor of China dare to truly pursue this goal.
Better to die with a clean, prosperous middle class (Chile, 60k per year) then die with favelas and murder and middle income trap and poverty, etc.
I’m not being materialistic, I believe in heaven and hell. But being rich isn’t evil, that is the 3rd world mindset because people in third world only got wealthy thru aristocracy, corruption, nepotism, oligarchy, etc, while NorthWestern Europeans engaged in capitalistic meritocracy so we don’t the envy the rich (at least not as much)
Based Anglo, capitalism is in our nature, not oligarchy, not corporatism, not socialism, just protestant ethic of capitalism.
Better to die in a glorious battle to the Death.