this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
281 points (84.9% liked)
People Twitter
10395 readers
1114 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. https://web.archive.org/save is an option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
- If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No it isn't. Capitalism doesn't even really have a goal because, unlike Socialism which was consciously invented as an ideology, Capitalism arose by accident and is subscribed to be wildly disparate people with wildly incompatible beliefs. But most of those people don't want to "own the world and space as a monopoly and ravage the earth to the point of no vegetation" because that's insane.
I guess he means organically as opposed to led by ideologists like the Soviet Union.
Or you're just so extremely in love with your ideas that you've become completely uninterested in basic facts that vaguely conflict with your vision of reality.
Who invented Capitalism?
You can make a very good argument that it was Adam Smith, with Wealth of Nations.
It was influential, but capitalism had essentially already come about in a limited form.
And his stated goal was competitive markets forever, not absolute monarchy with more steps. People dunk on conservatives by quoting that book.
You're so far off the deep end that it doesn't make sense trying to rebut you, so I ask questions that have easy answers to try and discuss something more productive. As usual with folks who think they're very smart though, you don't want to answer because it's not on your terms.
Take a class in politics. Or hell just read a book.
Your original point was a nonexistent strawman caricature of capitalism.
You think the concept of monopolies is a non-existent strawman character of capitalism?
I don't think monopolies are the "end goal of capitalism", nor the rest of what he said.
What a weird question to ask in the context of the conversation. I noid you genuinely think I said something that implied that?
I think you're partially right. Because the end goal of capitalism is fascism. But then again fascism often does consist of monopolies. So glass half full.
This is another pointless im13andthisisdeep take.
Can you quote a capitalist writer from before the 19th century who linked capitalism to fascism as a goal?
You're talking about "goals" but what you more likely actually mean is something like "inevitable end state" so perhaps you can count up the number of capitalist states which are currently fascist?
Fascism typically usurps capitalism when it does arise due to rampant corruption, so there is no longer a free market, even if the country was capitalist on the way there.
You talked about his original point, that was literally his first post. That was his Original Point. That monopolies are the end goal of capitalism.
Which they absolutely are, you're just legitimately wrong. Capitalism inevitably ends in monopolies that's why we have to break monopolies to artificially constrain capitalism. I mean honestly I'm flabbergasted that this has to be explained to you. Cuz just look around you. Name one industry in which that's not happening. It's inevitable.
Unregulated capitalism will lead to monopolies, but when capitalism was first developing, it was not a conscious choice to try to turn everything into monopolies, because people didn't have that level of foresight.
Later, when people really started thinking about economics, capitalist thinkers realised this danger and that it had to be avoided for capitalism to be useful.
His claim was universal though - it wasn't about unrestricted, unregulated capitalism, it was about all forms.
I don't necessarily agree with you that the original capitalist thinkers just didn't think far enough ahead to understand how their system would result in monopolies. That seems extremely generous of you and I don't buy it. However it's utterly moot. If they didn't see it doesn't change the fact that it does inevitably happen. So that's not even an argument worth having.
As for your other argument, no still true. Even in systems that have tried to patch the gaping holes and prop up the collapsing frame of capitalism monopolies still inevitably form. Look around. Most of the biggest monopolistic companies of today come from nations that tried to regulate monopolies and failed utterly. They didn't fail because they were so incredibly corrupt themselves, they failed because capitalism is a corrupting influence. It naturally leads toward corruption that destroys all regulation. That's why any form of regulated capitalism is doomed to fail.
Hell the mere fact that regulated capitalism even exists in any form is itself proof that capitalism results in monopoly isn't it? Otherwise why the need for the regulations?
This only makes sense if you think that regulated capitalism doesn't qualify as capitalism, but in that case who cares?
What are the awful monopolistic companies in Sweden and Germany and Spain? Are they "not capitalist", even though they have free enterprise, stick markets, lending and investment banks and floating currencies? Then your and OP's statements about capitalism are weird and irrelevant.
No it doesn't. Makes perfect sense.
Oh, ok then, now I'm convinced 💀