fatvegan

Part of the success that capitalism has had I reckon can been discovered by looking at who it favours and who it tries to dominate. Arguably, it co-opts and rewards anyone who might threaten it, which is fairly unique in the history of systems of control. It's an incredibly effective means of sorting the sheep from the goats, and raising up the sheep and crushing the goats. Past systems have tried to dominate particular groups based on race, or tradition, or values. But for the proponents of capitalism, so long as they know they they'll be sorted into the powerful segment, it makes far more sense to use a more dynamic line of power.

If the power imbalance is like a wall between the strong and the weak, then anyone who attacks the gate and damanges it is allowed to pass through it freely. But those who pound on it without any effect, can do so for as long as they like. Those who are allowed to pass through will enjoy the delights of expensive cheese and imported cars. But those outside pounding on the gates must eventually give up and go back to their AWA. Capitalism makes no attempt to dominate any but the weak. If you want to succeed in domination, then the weak are certainly the best group to choose. And succeed it does.

Just because capitalism works this way does not mean that a lot of good can come from it. There are many things the free market is very good at. But equitable power distribution is not one of them. And ultimately, if humans are worth anything, I would hope that it isn't sustainable. It shouldn't take many of the strong to keep attacking the wall, even though the gate has been opened for them, before it comes tumbling down and everyone can go inside and eat the good cheese. One day I hope enough people will realise that wealth is not a virtue, and that the wall isn't protecting anything worth protecting.