It is where you construct a separate rational for each and every time in history runaway capitalism has led directly to right wing fascism or left wing totalitarianism.
Sighs. Ok, let’s play.
Runaway capitalism did not lead to Nazi Germany; it was dire economic poverty created by the austere reparations demanded by the victorious Allies after WW1. Runaway capitalism did not lead to the Cuban revolution; it ws the incompetence of the Bautista regime that created a vacuum of leadership. Runaway capitalism did not lead to the Soviet Revolution; although capitalism had a role, Russia was a big place; it was the autocracy of the Tsarist regime which fueled those flames.
Only a fifth grade reading of history shows the above to be correct. So, although I’m sure you can come up with other examples which would in fact be examples of capitalism leading to autocracy, there are enough examples where that’s *not* the case as to show that there’s not a direct correlation between capitalism and autocracy.
We then debate each cases for days on end as if they are all separate, and there are no related themes.
Bingo. And that fact that you said that proves your own contention to be weak.
The US is set up politically to where totalitarianism is almost impossible, but you hate the left, right?
I don’t hate anybody; strong emotion is the enemy of reason.
You haven’t noticed that the young have abandoned Republican economic ideas and the party itself? You haven’t heard how socialism is growing in popularity among them?
Sure. I’ve also seen plenty of anecdotal data which shows that they have no idea what socialism is. To them, it’s a word that means only “not capitalism”. Their grasp of the definitions of the terms is weak; their understanding of economic history is almost nonexistent.
Let’s keep in mind here that today’s “socialist” movement amongst millenials is much weaker than the similar 1960’s movement was. THAT group had a much stronger intellectual understanding of what they were advocating, they had not yet seen the failures of the socialist systems in Cuba, China, and the USSR, and believed fully in the promise of socialism as a system that would rectify all social ills. Angela Davis wrote eloquently on how Cuba had wiped out racial injustice (oddly, she left out the parts where people who didn’t get with the regime’s “system” were summarily executed) and you had prior experiences of the same by Roger Nash Baldwin. Socialism was the be-all-end-all of human development.
Then, the revolutionaries got married, had babies, got mugged by reality, and all voted for Reagan. :-)
I have great faith that the pattern will repeat itself. But it won’t take quite as long, because now socialism has a more defined historical pattern of failure.
They will tell you it is the excesses of capitalism that they have seen all their lives.
Yes. They have seen so much in those (short) lives. :-)
But you won’t listen.
Don’t need to. I know how this plays out, because I’ve read this book before.
But, more to the point, it doesn’t matter. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. That mattered when production was localized as to where your factory was; that’s no longer the case. Multinationals have production all over the globe; information companies like Amazon have their “production” wherever their servers are. Most of our Fortune 500 can move their productive operations out of the reach of any “socialists” at the touch of a button. The same is true of individual wealth; unless the government decides to actually seize the $$$ of individuals (against the Takings clause of the Constitution), individual wealth can also be moved offshore rather easily, into assets which are nontrackable by the government.
Point here is that even if the “socialists” win, it’s a Pyrrhic victory. With a nod to Dante, they’d end up ruling in Hell, in a country where the producers and the wealth had virtually disappeared, left with a nation of people drinking the water, and no people left carrying the water.
Good luck to them.