Hacker News Reader

Comment by wormlord | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

don’t ask german companies what they were doing during 1933-1945

They were under the thumb of the regime. They produced whatever the government told them to produce. They had a predetermined profit margin that the government dictated to them. German capitalists certainly fared relatively well, but their influence and prestige was greatly reduced compared to the past. Nonetheless they took that deal because the alternative was literally communism.

Or IBM, for that matter.

Which party is ending capitalism? I'm curious, because there's one party saying explicitly that they intend to end the democratic process, one party explicitly stating the goal is the end of the rule of law, and one party saying they want to deploy the military against the supporters of the other political party.

You could make the argument that those positions are fundamentally opposed to capitalism as well, but that's not as explicit.

Regardless, only one party is threatening either of your alternatives, your straw man nonsense about ending capitalism not withstanding.

Please read my edited comment for clarity.

> Regardless, only one party is threatening either of your alternatives, your straw man nonsense about ending capitalism not withstanding.

Nobody is threatening either of those things. The idea that democracy is under any sort of threat is a pure lie told to you by those who benefit from keeping you scared.

Democracy is largely driven by preferences of the super rich. So your statement is a little like choosing between the church* and the pope.

* I’m aware not all Christian religions are governed by the pope. But I hope you still get the symbolism I’m making.

Not all billionaires - Bill Gates endorsed Harris.

Mostly I agree. Billionaires chose long ago to prioritize wealth.

Capitalism. They own companies that are established. It’s in their interest to prevent competition.

Almost all established companies eventually support rules that enshrine themselves as monopolies in exchange to much tougher regulation.

Tariffs force governments to pick and choose industries to receive state protection. As do subsidies.

Even creating tons of paperwork for startups helps a lot.

Plenty of democracies function this way. Italy and Belgium come to mind.

The means of production are still privately owned. What you described is not Capitalism by strict definition, but the owners of capital are still at the top of the food chain in such a system. It's not like lack of competition somehow precludes private ownership.

Which is why we need to legislate away the billionaire.

Do you really think Harris and co are able or willing to end capitalism? They have nearly as much to lose as the billionaires.

Of course not. However they are like 5% more willing to pursue anti-trust action and enforce regulations. Even a small threat like that will be resisted by the ultra wealthy.

So there isn’t democracy as we thought there was anymore…it’s really becoming an oligarchy.

Look at musk jumping around on stage and handing out money for votes.

It’s really disturbing.

Agreed, but that's just them voting for their interests, not voting to end democracy.

The destruction of democracy is a convenient byproduct of their consolidation of power. Fascism in germany was convenient for the wealthy-- even if they weren't the architects of it.

In the long term was it a good thing for the wealthy though ?

The idea that the rich in America, as a class, want the destruction of democracy, is laughable. Few people want to overturn a system that's making them millions.

You understand that anti-trust and regulations exist to support capitalism right? You understand that that is why those things exist right?

Because absent those comments you don't get capitalism, because absent those things you don't have a free market

If you think a free market is a requirement for capitalism then by definition sure. If you think it is about the distribution of ownership over capital then the free market doesn't matter. Many political scientists refer to the economic model of the USSR as "State Capitalism" because the state owns the means of production.

Would you rather I use a word like "Cronyism" to specify private ownership of capital without free-market competition?

Yeah, that's reasonable lets go for that, so given statements to the effect of

A) Ending democracy

B) Ending cronyism

Regardless of how effective you may think they would be at that goal, would you pick (A) over (B)?

They are the billionaires. Both get massive donations from billionaires, and just as the last few cycles, the Democrats have likely more than doubled the big donor fundraising of the Republicans.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/10/25/trump-v...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com