You can practically hear the phonk.
This appears to be the Mamdani interview by Erin Bernett on CNN, during which the word capitalism or capitalist was mentioned exactly zero times. EDIT: I gave up too soon, it’s 8min in and I was looking at an older transcript from three days ago.
Her questions were actually pretty good because they set Mamdani up to give amazing answers, instead of the stupid tribalistic bullshit in your fanfiction.
That’s not true, at 8 minutes he literally gets asked that exact question and responds no. Watch between 8 mins and 8:06 of the link you posted…
Ah, you’re right, mb. I watched the first 6 minutes at 1.75x speed and then gave up and read a transcript of another interview which was apparently from 3 days ago.
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/vik8HbWnZ68
She asked him “Do you like capitalism?” word for word.
Not to mention being “Breaking News” on the ticker immediately after with his answer in the back half of the interview.
So it’s also written on the screen multiple times.
This guy fucks…
The Bourgeoisie
And also his wife and apparently that also became news somehow
How can that become news?
A US presidential candidate that doesn’t deepthroat coporation everytime he opens his mouth? Guard him well, these types tend to end up comitting suicide via a bullet to the back of the head.
How uninformed do you have to be to think he’s a presidential candidate?
It’s still called capitalism, but in reality it’s drifted way off course. What we’ve got now looks more like a corporate oligarchy. The free market only applies to small players, big banks and mega-corps get bailouts, write policy through lobbyists, and face no real consequences for failure. It’s capitalism in name, but the rules are rigged. Real capitalism doesn’t have a reset button for the rich and a bootstraps lecture for everyone else.
It’s capitalism in the same way the Soviet Union was communism. No matter the theory, this is how these systems play out when real humans are in charge. That said, humans can clearly do better than the US system. Western Europe is full of counterexamples of semi-capitalism done better.
What we’ve got now looks more like a corporate oligarchy. The free market only applies to small players
Tell me, how free was India to develop in free competition against England in the 19th century? How free was Congo to compete against Belgium? Oh, wait, you’re only talking for a white minority, I see. When exactly was capitalism better, when English children lost their fingers trapped in machinery in coal-powered factories in England in the 1850s and died at 30-ish years of age? Maybe it was better in 1917, when the ambitions of capitalism and imperialism triggered WW1 and ground tens of millions of lives? Or was it good in the 1950s/60s when the US murdered millions in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Korea through the most horrific bombing campaigns just because they didn’t want to be capitalist? What good capitalism are you exactly talking about?
This is real capitalism. Real capitalism does not work
I mean it does. At least as far as it can. I live in America. And aside from the shit we’re going through right now and the myriad of issues that we have as a country and society our standard if living is very hight. Not the highest of course but very high never the less. That standard is made possible in large by capitalism.
I believe Rand called it reasonable self interest, not every billionaire is an oligarch, not every rich person wants to rent out a god dammed city for their wedding like some cartoonish villian.
Penn Jillette said that he believes most people are good and I believe that applies to the rich as well.
Corporate oligarchy can be argued as a natural out come if capitalism run rampant I agree. But to equate the two as the same… They’re just not.
High? Sure. But not sustainable. Far from sustainable. Capitalism is great for short term. But we can’t live with just short term.
not every billionaire is an oligarch,
You don’t become a billionaire by not being one
This is a literal insane take. America only has the standard of living it does because of the rampant exploitation of the third world, and so i guess in that sense capitalism does work at the only thing its meant for, funneling resources away from the exploited masses and into the hands of a privileged few. Pointing at america as an example of the success of capitalism is peak brainrot.
In capitalism the goal is to use the money you have now to help you get more money in the future. If you can spend a few million dollars training your workforce or spend a few million buying corrupt politicians, and the latter nets you 10x the return in 1/10 the time, the system will reward those who make the immoral choice. And if you are working for a publicly traded company, your shareholders and board of directors will probably fire you for not using all technically-legal tools at your disposal.
I was recently thinking that the proponents of unregulated capitalism make it sound like natural selection for corporations. And it kind of does sound like that, until you think about it a little bit. It would be like an animal that grows more mouths as it finds more food, and if it eats even more food it can do magic shit like edit its own DNA and warp the laws of physics. Oh and of course it would be immortal, able to die from injury or starvation but never old age. (and if it did die from injury or starvation, it’s probably so that its owner can sell its kidneys)
Nah thats capitalism buddy, at its core. The point is the rigging, in order to profit as much as possible. Corporate Oligarcy is the ineveitable outcome of capitalism, because capitalism creates its own destruction after a certain point of wealth consolidation, after which point the system can no longer function as is after all the cannabalizing of its own sectors.
This is arguably one of the core components of capitalism that many capitalists choose to forget. Simping for the rich and powerful is not, itself, capitalism - capitalism is an innovation only enabled by massive government intervention in economic matters. Capitalism was not born with the first exchange of goods between people, capitalism was born with the rise of complex legal and financial instruments in European states in the 16th-17th century limiting the use of feudal and financial power.
The issue is that capitalist elites, like all prior elites, are not actually ideologues, whatever their claims. Capitalist elites are elites first, and capitalists second, if at all - the goal of elites is to preserve and enhance their own power, even at the expense of the system that enables them.
Capitalism is a touch worse at preventing elite accumulation of power than other systems (socialism), and a touch better than others (actual feudalism), but ultimately any examination which forgets that, no matter how ideologically ‘pure’ the analysis is, will always miss the fucking trapdoor to a more despotic and unfair system right beneath our feet.
Never trust the powerful. Any cooperation should always be conditional.
This take “capitalism is an innovation only enabled by massive government intervention” misses the mark. It doesn’t define capitalism; it just assumes we all agree on some vague historical version of it.
Capitalism, at its core, is private ownership, voluntary exchange, and profit driven markets. Government intervention isn’t part of the definition it’s something that’s been layered on top as capitalism evolved. Yeah, modern capitalism what we see post 16th century definitely grew with state backing: contract enforcement, corporate law, banking systems, even colonial muscle. But to say capitalism only exists because of government intervention is just historically lazy.
What really happened is the state and capital developed hand in hand. One didn’t invent the other. They just learned to exploit each other really well.
This take “capitalism is an innovation only enabled by massive government intervention” misses the mark. It doesn’t define capitalism; it just assumes we all agree on some vague historical version of it.
Capitalism, at its core, is private ownership, voluntary exchange, and profit driven markets.
Oh, so instead of a ‘vague historical version’ of capitalism that is widely accepted by applying a set of unique organizational characteristics that arose and spread from a single epicenter in Renaissance Europe, instead we have the vague historical notion that capitalism predates the written word. Great.
Government intervention isn’t part of the definition it’s something that’s been layered on top as capitalism evolved.
Fucking what.
You… you do realize that markets only exist because of government enforcement, right?
But to say capitalism only exists because of government intervention is just historically lazy.
No, not only does capitalism only exist because of government intervention, as capitalism is defined by transferable private investor ownership of the means of production, but markets themselves, which predate capitalism, also only exist because of government intervention, and claiming otherwise is ignorant of the basic underpinnings of pre-modern economics, instead projecting a very modern view of economic systems on the distant past wherein the very structures that enable every piece of the economic puzzle are, very often, fucking lacking entirely.
What really happened is the state and capital developed hand in hand. One didn’t invent the other. They just learned to exploit each other really well.
Would you care to tell me what property is?
What a chad
DOWN WITH THE CAPITALIST CANCER
We need a word that describes “questions that cannot be answered with a simple yes/no asked with the explicit intent to make a sound bite for stupid people.” Germans do this kind of thing all the time. Some compound word like “stupid dummy-faced shitheel question.” Studu-fashtion.
It’s called a false dichotomy, actually. Basically pretending there are only two sides to an argument (capitalism good, capitalism bad) when there is more nuance. Capitalism good, but… capitalism bad, but… this isn’t capitalism… etc.
It’s called a loaded question, but that doesn’t really have the weight of how destructive this has been to society
I’m enjoying how easy it is to use ratfuck to describe using proceduralism to try to manipulate democracy, maybe something along those lines?
ratfuck to describe using proceduralism to try to manipulate democracy
Haha, I never thought to define that term, it just comes to me instinctively whenever Democrats or Republicans are mentioned (particularly this second Trump administration): Democrats ratfucked their constituents in 2024, Republicans ratfucked the country in 2025.
Right? It just doesn’t even require explanation. People know what you’re talking about immediately
It’s a concept we all know missing a word, and people just get it instantly. I’ve had to repeat it slowly, but everyone gets it
Omg, did you just darken his beard again? Somebody call Fox with this breaking story.
capitalism wouldn’t be so bad without the corrupt bloated shitheel scumbag fucking christofascligarchs
Capitalism ultimately rots into authoritarianism through wealth accumulation.
Corruption is an inherent part of capitalism
Capitalism grantees they rise to power.
systematic removal of regulations and consequences has enabled greedy corporate dickbacks to sieze power.
systems are made of people. To make a better system, you need better people.
You’re wrong. Capitalism is, by definition, a “winner takes it all” system. The logical endpoint of competition between private entities is the consolidation of one of those entities, and once economy of scale plays a role, reversing that is almost impossible. And once a private entity has significantly more economic power than the others, it can manipulate regulations and consequences. Capitalism explicitly rewards by design being greedy
Yes, and that’s capitalism. The regulations are antithetical to capitalism, but they’re also the only thing keeping us slightly safe from it. Yes, making capitalism less capitalist makes it a lot better. We can have a better system that’s just better, with the people that exist.
The Supreme Court specifically, they gave US citizens united, and then unlimited executive power. Now we’re fucked being most hope.
They always do, regardless of the economic system.
I would not describe any communist or socialist leader as a Christian Fascist Oligarch.
Usually they’re just regular old Fascist Oligarchs
Exactly
it sure does with small government.
remember there are countries that enjoy capitalism without the 5 ring circus shitshow we have going on in the states
So far, but corruption is always the end result.
corruption is always the end result.
i’m not trying to simp for capitalism, but corruption can and does happen under any system
Anarchy. Can’t be corrupt if nobody has power. 😤
unironically this
mitual aid for the win
Roving bands of bandits would disagree.
Sir this is not a video game.
But I like roads and hospitals and fire stations and no purge.
Anarchism is not the lack of government. It’s the lack of hierarchy. There can (and practically must) still be government and cooperation. Anarchism is not chaos, like the media portrays it.
There’s a lot of resources online if you want to learn more.
Cooperation can still exist without authority.
The difficulty isn’t in the cooperation part. It’s with the not having an authority. Some corrupt assholes will always try to take charge and be an authority.
Give Europe a bit more time. They’ll get there.
Those countries are headed towards that circus at varying paces, so that argument doesn’t work anymore. I mean Germany? France? Sweden? Britain? Italy?
Capitalism is the accumulation and hoarding of wealth at all costs. Exploitation and abuse are foundational concepts. There is no ethical or moral version of such a system, and so no version of it that “wouldn’t be so bad.” It is immorality and evil distilled into a code of conduct.
There’s a reason capitalism is essentially counter to the teachings of all major world religions, many of which are extremely authoritarian in their own way.
One aspect of modern capitalism is predatory loans, which every Abrahamic religion has writings against.
It’s pretty telling most religions would not go as far as “poor people can go fuck themselves” despite being used to control people through fear over millenia but the end game of unchecked capitalism is truly as simple as “poor people can go fuck themselves”
That’s saying a grilled cheese wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t have cheese. At that point it ain’t a grilled cheese anymore so why even try to defend it in the first place? Just eat some god damn bread
That’s what capitalism is.
Anarchists still believe in trade.
Capitalism is always bad, because capitalism is where an ownership class who does no work leeches from a working class who owns nothing.
Don’t confuse free markets with capitalism, they’re different.
Genuine question. How do you have free markets without the existence of capital and the pursuit of its accumulation?
The definition of capitalism per the dictionary is:
an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
How do you have free trade without people who own things trading them?
Capital has existed far longer than capitalism has.
I mean, this feels semantic. The word capitalism is obviously of the modern era, but there are governments and economic systems going back to antiquity that I think meet all of the definitional requirements of “capitalistic.”
Really, I just lack a vision of what “free trade but not capitalism” could possibly mean. Could you describe that system for me?
When I try to do so, the result always meets the literal, dictionary definition of capitalism, as listed above.
This is the huge problem with the wider debate; hardcore leftists have a very specific well-defined meaning in mind when they use the word “Capitalism”, whereas the majority of the general public think “Capitalism” just means “you can start a business if you want”.
“Neoliberalism” doesn’t work in most rhetoric either because it’s got the word “liberal” in it. We need a new word that’s unambiguously understood to refer to the specific components of capitalism that are objectionable.
Which “specific components of capitalism” would you say are not objectionable? It’s essence is the private ownership of the productive forces of society and the derivation of profit by selling the product. The core of it is objectionable from the view of democracy or egalitarianism.
You’re exemplifying my point quite well there, in terms of debating from the perspective of your own very precise no-true-Scotsman definition.
But to answer you at face value, let’s have a look in wikipedia’s opening paragraph on Capitalism:
This socioeconomic system has developed historically through several stages and is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
It’s going to be a struggle convincing the developed world, or even the majority of left-leaning voters, that owning your own home, earning a company salary, paying people for services rendered, or market competition all need abolishing. Most people just want to see a bit more market regulation, monopoly busting, worker protections, social welfare, money removed from politics, and the rich paying their share of tax.
It’s definitely semantic, but semantics is the reason we use different words for different things.
Anyway, “free trade but not capitalism” would just be anything where you can buy and sell stuff, but without the individual owner class. It can be part of anything. Let’s say workers own their workplace. They still get paid, and they can use that money to buy what they want. That isn’t capitalism, but it still has free trade. Free trade is one component that is required in capitalism, but it isn’t exclusive to it.
Edit: Also, something can be capitalistic without being capitalism. It can have characters related to capitalism, but not meet all the requirements.
So, it isn’t the ownership and trade of capital that makes something capitalism, it’s when someone is allowed to accumulate too much capital?
What constitutes “enough” capital to push it over the edge into capitalism?Or is it that you cannot have non-owner workers? That you can’t employ additional help without those people buying into the business?
Not trying to be an ass. Just trying to understand the distinction. I genuinely don’t know what “all the requirements” necessary to make it capitalism are, and try as I might I am not finding any beyond the literal definition in the dictionary, which doesn’t have any.
What is the source for this definition of capitalism? Just trying to figure out if this is, like, the “academic definition” or something. Cause, as you say, what words mean does mean something, which is why we have different words for different things.
I do think it’s really easy to redefine words in a “no true Scotsman”-y way, where you redefine a general word to mean “just the versions of that thing I don’t like,” in order to tribalise it. Which doesn’t mean that’s what you’re doing here. I’m just trying to understand, and I think if we can’t agree on what the word capitalism even means, we aren’t exactly going to get anywhere. So I’m just trying to figure out what definition of the term you are using and why.
The definition above, that you’re referring to, is clear enough. Ownership of trade and industry by private owners for profit.
If industry isn’t privately owned it isn’t capitalist. If it isn’t for profit it isn’t capitalist.
If the state, workers, or other non-private groups own the means of production, it isn’t capitalist. If they’re not operating the industry in a manner to make profit, and instead are doing good (for example), it isn’t capitalist.
People can still be paid and they can still spend their money on goods and services. That is not necessarily capitalist behavior. It’s just a method of distributing value.
Well you have mercantilism, which was the predecessor of capitalism
Basically, the difference is the role of government. Think of it in feudal terms - a noble owns a mine, owns an expedition, uses their soldiers for both security of their land and their monetary interests. As far as raw resources/resource producing land, you couldn’t buy that without buying a title first
But it’s a line that blurred as time went on. If you’re a leather worker, that leather came from an animal owned by the king or by livestock owned by a noble. So you’re paying taxes on the inputs, but you can probably sell stuff freely - although imports and exports might be taxed. And if you’re a merchant, you might buy spices from one noble and sell it to others
But the means of production were owned by a noble - they owned the land and the serfs that work it, they own the animals and the mines.
As time went on, it kinda faded… Maybe you sell the rights to mine a site, maybe you partner with a merchant to go on an expedition for spices, maybe you just require a permit to hunt on the land, and so on
But then as supply chains gets more complicated, you kind of naturally evolve into capitalism
See, the trick there is in your first paragraph I feel like. Under mercantilism, trade is under the almost exclusive purview of the government. So I would argue this doesn’t really meet the definition of “free trade.”
But, to steel man a bit, when “the government” is fairly unstructured, like in a feudal system, the line between government control of trade and “private citizen” control of trade can be a bit blurry. And over time I’m sure it gets messy whether a person is a “government entity” or not.
I do also feel like there’s a “difference of scale is difference of kind” problem here. Obviously if you own a copper mine and employ hundreds of people to go down and mine it for you, you own the means of production. But also, if you run a small restaurant in a strip mall and hire a half dozen servers to wait tables, you also own the means of production.
And, to your point, there probably were private innkeepers under mercantilism that took coin in exchange for goods and services. They probably employed people to help work the place. Does that make it capitalism? What if the owner used the money from that inn to build another, then another and another, and eventually had the money to buy a title and become part of the “noble class”? Is it capitalism then? Does a system that allows for that count as a capitalism, or does it need to actively encourage it?
Idk. I think my big issue, at the end of the day, is that the word capitalism doesn’t really mean anything. Or, rather, no one can really agree on what it means, and it just turns into a tribalism stand in word for “anyone who disagrees with me on economic policy.” But that’s so unspecific as to be totally useless. What parts of “capitalism” are you decrying? What would you replace it with? But I feel like any questions are met with anger that you’re not bought into the anti-capitalist agenda, even though no two people seem to agree on what that actually means.
To address your first point, you go into the bazaar, and you buy a shirt vs another shirt. The lord owns the cotton fields, they both come from the same place but have different prices and different quality/traits - that’s a free market. The raw materials belong to the lord, but what you do with it is up to the artisan
You’re trying to cut the difference between raw materials and value added - that’s the murky difference between mercantilism and capitalism
Remember, there was an age where shipping iron to a town was how farmers got tools - mercantilism is about raw materials in and out, once things get complicated it doesn’t make sense
corrupt bloated shitheel scumbag fucking christofascligarchs
AKA the inventors and vanguard of capitalism.
Capitalism only works when heavily regulated, because human greed is a cancer to everything it touches.
That regulation is antithetical to capitalism. Yes, it’s the only thing that keeps it functioning in a reasonable manner, but that’s just an indication capitalism is bad.
Yes, less capitalist capitalism is better than more capitalist capitalism. Maybe we should just have none.
This — if capitalism could be contained by government it would do nicely, but it ends up corrupting government so that it cannot function.
It’s the basic idea behind ordoliberalism – companies get free reign until their actions start harming the common good, at which point the government imposes fair rules to even the playing field. It’s… reasonably functional as far as political theories go. Still wildly suboptimal, though, and not long-term stable against the influence of hyper-wealthy entities.
That’s the problem. The system prioritizes wealth accumulation above all else. When you build a society that views wealth as the highest state of being then those regulatory systems will eventually be bought out.
There may well be no such thing as a sustainable regulated capitalism, especially when we’ve normalized the monetization of everything.
capitalism is amazing as long as it not allowed to run rampant. stricter regulations and safety nets (usa) would make the whole risk/reward game of capitalism more palatable imo
Please tell me, when exactly has capitalism been amazing?
They’re confusing free market with capitalism most likely.
Salt and pepper make dog shit more palatable too. Instead of seeking to make bad things palatable, can we try something different instead?
I’d imagine salt would make it taste worse for the same reasons why salt makes food taste better, but this is just me being facetious
Yup. Most things go bad if not fixed and out of control. Moderation is key. The problem is the people in charge don’t want a good system. They want a system they can control.
They will do anything but a fair system because then they would lose control.
Yes let’s set strict global rules on pricing of goods and a living standard of wage as well as rent capped at 10-20% income based(not real estate). Then companies can be taxed to provide health insurance and housing for everyone. Finally we can ensure 97+% employment by setting full time to 20hr a week with 3mo vacation mandatory minimum. I suppose in that world Capitalism sounds A-OK to me.
Simple small changes no biggie
Honestly, I think it’s a bad idea for a democratic politicians to say capitalism is bad as a blanket statement. Capitalism with controls is great. Unchecked capitalism is bad.
Also, capitalism and social safety nets are not mutually exclusive. We can have capitalism as our economic core while still providing universal healthcare.
Any democrat that just comes out and says “capitalism bad” as a blanket statement is going to have a much harder time in the general election.
Any democrat that just comes out and says “capitalism bad” as a blanket statement is going to have a much harder time in the general election.
This is because the entire political establishment is aligned with capitalists, not because there isn’t popular agreement with that statement. But I’m not sure if that’s true anymore for a Dem politician.
Capitalism with controls is great
Please, can you give me the historical example you’re thinking about when you say this?
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh
… He said, while fully benefiting from it
ShartDickPrime here, live from the glue factory! I’ve been bagging hard so I can hit you with the hottest and freshest shit takes in the Fediverse!
Keep on huffing, you crazy diamond.
Huh, what an ignorant peasant. Thou proclaimeth that thou doeth not like toiling away all thine day in the fields under the scorching sun and giving most of the produce as tributes to thine lord. But, thou use the protection of the lord. Hypocrisy, I tells thou
Poe’s Law strikes again. It’s such an astonishingly stupid argument that I can never tell when someone’s joking when they say it.
The guy you’re replying to also thinks musk is a smart guy…
No ethical consumption under capitalism.
Children think of capitalism as a system. Economists think of capitalism as a tool.
So it’s just going to be children arguing against children with no one even trying to learn anything?
Capitalism, by definition, is a system not a tool. “Free market” may be a tool. “Private ownership of capital” may be a tool. “Free contracts of employment between individual economical agents” may be a tool. But the conjunction of those things is what defines the system of capitalism.
Like I say, children think of capitalism as a system. The right wing believes this too. Children arguing with children.
Capitalism can co-exist with socialism in the same economic system. Happens in many countries. Just Americans can’t make that work.
It by definition cannot and does not anywhere.
you’re thinking of “social democracy” which is capitalist and not at all socialist.
Like I say, children think of capitalism as a system. The right wing believes this too. Children arguing with children.
“I am not going to actually explain what I think people are getting wrong. I’m just going to pretend I know more than everyone else to give myself a false sense of superiority.”
What does it mean for socialism and capitalism to co-exist in one system?
metastatic Cancer can coexist with healthy tissues,
look at all the terminal cancer patients that are still alive
Capitalism can co-exist with socialism in the same economic system
Lemme guess: “socialism is when the government does stuff. And the more stuff it does, the more socialist it is. And when the government does a real lotta stuff, that’s communism”
Ergo Trump is a communist. Case and point
