:
Originally posted by pinkgoth2
Well, that's not my definition of it, but yea, you may be right? I don't know, I'm too lazy to do research.* Though that definition is a slight contradiction in itself, as if in Capitalism "should attempt to accumulate as much money as possible", I don't see why that makes it harder for those of lower down attempting to climb up.
Again, probably the current form that is actually applied not just in theory but in practise shows this, but the ideal as you put it in the first paragraph does not result in what you said in the second. = No, I am not seeing what you are getting at.
|
Okay, I'll give it another try.
Capitalism is based on all Individuals and Groups seeking their own interests, yes?
Now, the Individuals and Groups that are already at the top will be the ones who are the best equipped to achieve their own interests, yes? Whereas those at the bottom will be less well equipped, yes?
Now, since Capitalism endorses the efforts of individuals, and preaches that governments should not get involved, then naturally (when left to their own devices) those who already possess power will continue to accumulate more, as those without power are not as suited to achieveing it, yes?
Therefore, Capitalism makes the Rich Richer and the Poor Poorer. This sentence works just as well when words such as "Powerful" or "Influential" instead of "Rich".
Can you understand this logical progression? If you don't, please tell me where you lose track of it. If you
do understand it, but disagree with it, could you tell me where you think it falls down? Thanks.