One major thing to note is none of these people have money like that sitting in a bank account and certainly not their pocket. That is their net wealth. They are invested in companies.
How is this "major?" Regardless of whether their capital is financial or material, they nevertheless possess an exorbitant amount of it and therefore immeasurable political power over the masses.
If you owned a corner store you could technically be worth millions and still be struggling. If you sold off all stock(your materials to sell), the store, and other misc. items maybe you could have some money, but no job.
Jesus fuck. You right-wingers never fail to voice the most idiotic views imaginable.
Obviously, you would not even need a job if you had millions. Duh!
Essentially these people giving their money to charity would crash the world's economy leading to far more people in poverty due to them crashing the stock market.
Please provide evidence for this ludicrous, armchair economics claim, which is unsupported by your above screed. Specifically, cite a reputable source demonstrating that there is any necessary connection between the stock market and workers' economic wellbeing.
There's a bigger issue here though, what's going on isn't capitalism. It's corporatism
This statement is just as ridiculously stupid as everything else you have said. First of all, as noted in the title, you clearly do not know what capitalism is. Keep in mind that capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned; it relies on commodity production for profits. (To be sure, the US and all other wealthy nations, including state capitalist China, are capitalist.) Additionally, corporatism refers to the control of a state or organization by large interest groups. Since, in capitalism, the bulk of society's wealth and resources are owned by a select few (instead of being collectively and democratically controlled directly by the populace, as they are in socialism), this necessitates the existence of a ruling class that wields near-total power over political, governmental, and legal institutions.
Accordingly, your distinction between capitalism and corporatism is evidently a fallacious splitting of hairs (trivial objection). Rather than being wholly unrelated phenomena, corporatism is actually a concrete element of capitalist societies; they are indeed fundamentally indistinct.
If you think the government having an over 50% share of government is capitalist, I don't know what to tell you.
Clearly, you do not know anything factual about this topic. Why, then, did you even bother to utter all this nonsense about it?
Lastly,it's interesting to me that Bezos and other multinationals are all big democrats here in the U.S.
This is only interesting to you because, like any typical political ignoramus, you are unaware that the Democrats are no less a faction of the capitalist ruling class than the Republicans. Both parties are pro-capitalist and serve the interests of our rulers.
Democrats are the ones trying to lower the wealth gap right?
Where did you hear this? It is this sort of deception that, unfortunately, garners the party support from workers.
I want . . . the poor to get richer, the middle class to get richer.
This cannot feasibly happen to any sustainable extent in societies with ruling classes that control the vast majority of society's wealth and resources. You are woefully naive if you think rulers seek anything but to secure as much power for themselves as possible.
Communism around the world in every place it has been implemented has sunk everyone.
As I recently explained to Hajduk, another dimwitted right-winger:
Like most people, you are politically uneducated and do not know what either socialism or communism are. Keep in mind that socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned and democratically controlled directly by the people. Communism, on the other hand, refers to societies that are classless, stateless, socialist, and moneyless. While Western media refer to certain troubled countries (like the ones you listed) as "socialist"/"communist," these usages of those terms are misnomers. To be sure, no countries have been either socialist or communist; on the contrary, all have been class states running on a money economy whose means of production are either privately owned, or else controlled by an elite bureaucratic class.
Even if we grant that these so-called "communist" countries have been good-faith attempts at instituting communism (which, incidentally, is a dubious presumption), their failures are attributable to specific, concrete geopolitical factors rather than "communism" in the abstract, namely the overarching, global capitalist system. Obviously, individual communist societies cannot survive long in the face of intense competition against the dominant capitalist powers, which has taken the form of election coups, economic sanctions, military suppression, and the like.
As Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and other great anticapitalist thinkers have brilliantly argued, in order for a communist revolution to be successful it must be grounded on the international organization and mobilization of the working class against their capitalist rulers. Nothing short of this can sustain such a revolution for any appreciable period of time.