-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.
It is major because the left and posts on this subject make it sound like business men just sit around with billions in the bank rather than it being reinvested into society. And if you are worried about the immeasurable political power it has over the masses, then you should also be concerned with the big multinational corporations all supporting democrats far more than they are the other side.
-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!
Calm down. The fact that you are this enraged and emotional on a debate over what just should be facts is a little off putting. I'll respond this time, but if you can't hold a logical debate without descending into the last resort of desperate emotional attacks then you just keep having your lefty temper tantrums without me.
Now for the response, yes you would not need a job, but most people do not quite once they approach a million net wealth. It's about doing something you love, having a passion in life. I'm sure someone out there has, but I certainly don't hear or know a bunch of people who just quit once they got a their retirement settled.
-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 well being.
Asking to provide proof is like being asked to provide proof people usually pay for houses. You can easily look up what happens when billionaires move money around and it has caused smaller stock market crashes when done, but if just 10 of the top richest in America moved their money out of stocks it would be 20% of the 2008 stock market crash which caused a world wide depression. Just the top 10.
-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.
Ah my incredibly insulting friend, it seems as it is you who does not know what the definition of capitalism is. I suggest looking it up in a dictionary. Yes it involved the means of production, but it also by definition means the the means of distribution and exchange of wealth must be done through private hands. I'm not sure what point there is to continuing when the very title of your post is factually incorrect, but I would suggest using dictionary.com so you understand the words you are using better as a shared understanding of words is the basis for communication.
And no they are not distinct. Government creating special rules for corporations in return for more power and influence that allow them to stamp out the little guys through government regulation is anti capitalist, once again you should look up the definition.
-Clearly, you do not know anything factual about this topic. Why, then, did you even bother to utter all this nonsense about it?
I've seen sports fans insult less. Are you engaging in a debate, a temper tantrum, or are an insult comic? If government is controlling more than 50% of the money supply, it aint capitalist. Again, a dictionary is a friend.
-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.
Ah no both parties are corporatists, not capitalists, which is why I'm a libertarian. Republicans to a lesser extent are which is why the corporations have solidly swung to support the left. The main thing is if the party of the right was supposedly any more supportive than the party of the left of corporate power, then corporations would be supporting the right. Which they aren't.
-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.
The politicians make rules supported by multinational corporations to stamp out competition. The medicine is not more rules and therefore more power being handed to those politicians and the corporations that support them, but more competition to decrease the power than these mega businesses have.
A government takeover of all business leading to one entity controlling everything has led to poverty everywhere it's been tried. More business and more competition has led to wealth where it has been allowed to thrive. Aka capitalism.
People can choose to be communist and live under communism in a capitalist system. Communes have existed in the U.S. The left just has to force everyone into it of course. They just have to control everything.
-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.
Let the brutal put down of anyone who disagrees with the new system begin!