That analysis explained why libertarians could not look to capitalists for support, that only the petty bourgeoisie and the peasants would be interested in libertarian politics. This probably struck many of you as odd, so this article will expand on that point.
This was so weird and off I just had to share.
It must be understood what is meant by capitalism. The socialist understanding of capitalism is not free markets. To them, capitalism is not the “ism” of the capital market, but of the holders of that capital. It would be more accurate to call the socialist conception “Capitalistism” - rule by capitalists.
😶
The free market is toxic to capitalists because it‘s an equalizing force between people with unrealized economic potential and those who have already achieved theirs.
It goes on and on like this. WTF?
Don’t ever think that morality or ethics will stop big business.
:hahaha:
There’s this really weird phenomenon where if you ask someone in the West to define ‘Capitalism’ they’ll give roughly the definition of Free Enterprise as though that’s what the word means, but if you ask them to define ‘Free Enterprise’ they will define it correctly and then make a point of clarifying that ‘Capitalism’ actually means a different thing and define it correctly.
