Seems that way through enough experience and empirical evidence. I just wonder what could have happened if we enforced anti-trust law earlier on… they were meant to help prevent monopolistic companies from taking over everything. Maybe it was a lost hope, but I would’ve liked to see the system functioning as intended for once.
Government itself arises out of conflict between classes, and the fundamental mechanism of capitalism is accumulation. The former means without pretty intensive upheaval and reorientation of governmental systems, the institutions are unlikely to interfere with the core function they were designed to protect. The latter means that no matter what protections you put in place, by the very nature of how it works, capitalism will trend towards monopoly.
The truth is that it can’t. In economic formations where private property is the principle aspect, you can’t really take control of capital and plan it to the necessary extent, those at the top are those priests of capital best suited for endlessly profiting and growing. It isn’t “meritocracy,” the system needs profit and will destroy anything that doesn’t help with that. Only socialism can truly be planned.
It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.
Those on the imperialized end cannot themselves really become imperialist, and the total capital to be imperialized is limited, so you end up with nationalist countries that aren’t imperialist because there’s nothing left to imperialize, but this stays at a crossroads where imperialist countries threaten you into opening up your capital markets to be imperialized.
Those on the imperialized end cannot themselves really become imperialist, and the total capital to be imperialized is limited, so you end up with nationalist countries that aren’t imperialist because there’s nothing left to imperialize, but this stays at a crossroads where imperialist countries threaten you into opening up your capital markets to be imperialized.
The global south is imperialized. The most they can do is become nationalist and kick out imperialists, they can’t really become imperialist themselves. They would if they could. Assuming, of course, they don’t become socialist in the process of kicking out the imperialists.
Can you name a developed capitalist nation that doesn’t practice imperialism? The global south cannot become imperialist because there’s nowhere else to imperialize, either they become nationalist, socialist, or remain imperialized.
You mean they know exactly what the problem but choose bury their heads in the sand.
What’s the problem? Is it unchecked capitalism? I think it might be unchecked capitalism.
Even checked capitalism is still the problem. Both decay, both lead to imperialism.
Seems that way through enough experience and empirical evidence. I just wonder what could have happened if we enforced anti-trust law earlier on… they were meant to help prevent monopolistic companies from taking over everything. Maybe it was a lost hope, but I would’ve liked to see the system functioning as intended for once.
Government itself arises out of conflict between classes, and the fundamental mechanism of capitalism is accumulation. The former means without pretty intensive upheaval and reorientation of governmental systems, the institutions are unlikely to interfere with the core function they were designed to protect. The latter means that no matter what protections you put in place, by the very nature of how it works, capitalism will trend towards monopoly.
The truth is that it can’t. In economic formations where private property is the principle aspect, you can’t really take control of capital and plan it to the necessary extent, those at the top are those priests of capital best suited for endlessly profiting and growing. It isn’t “meritocracy,” the system needs profit and will destroy anything that doesn’t help with that. Only socialism can truly be planned.
Why do you make that claim when it has not proven to be true fir almost all capitalist nations?
It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.
Those on the imperialized end cannot themselves really become imperialist, and the total capital to be imperialized is limited, so you end up with nationalist countries that aren’t imperialist because there’s nothing left to imperialize, but this stays at a crossroads where imperialist countries threaten you into opening up your capital markets to be imperialized.
If it has not happened in most cases you cannot observe a trend because that trend is not actually occurring. Your whole claim starts off flawed.
It’s happened in all possible cases, where do you think it hasn’t happened?
Most capitalist nations are not engaging in imperialism especially those in the global south.
Reread my comment:
The global south is imperialized. The most they can do is become nationalist and kick out imperialists, they can’t really become imperialist themselves. They would if they could. Assuming, of course, they don’t become socialist in the process of kicking out the imperialists.
.ml is why
Can you name a developed capitalist nation that doesn’t practice imperialism? The global south cannot become imperialist because there’s nowhere else to imperialize, either they become nationalist, socialist, or remain imperialized.