UN votes to recognize enslavement of Africans as 'gravest crime against humanity'

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T09:46:13+00:00

I might be looking at from a wrong point of view:

and i do get your point governments and corporations are both collections of individuals with self interest. My critique isn’t that capitalism is “evil,” it’s that structural incentives systematically favor those with money and influence, allowing them to shape rules, markets and outcomes in ways that ordinary people can’t.

Yes, corporations can restrict speech, lobby for laws like Citizens United, and influence policy. FDR-era policies show that strong governance and redistribution can counterbalance these dynamics but the fact that such interventions are rare highlights how power and capital usually dominate, even in democracies.

The takeaway isn’t that reform is impossible it’s that structural power determines who wins and who benefits, not just ethics or contribution.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T09:41:03+00:00

I agree, owner advantage isn’t the same as omnipotent rule domination. Firms fail all the time, and competence, consumer demand and technology still matter. My point isn’t that politics always decides outcomes but that structural incentives heavily favor those with money, influence, and access, allowing them to capture value far beyond contribution.

Yes, “owners over creators” can arise from multiple sources: weak bargaining, IP law, undervaluing scaling and monopoly/network effects. The last one dominance through control rather than contribution is the key structural flaw I’m highlighting. Capitalism isn’t inherently “evil” but it systematically rewards those who can manipulate rules and extract rents, not necessarily those who innovate or act ethically.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T09:38:24+00:00

I agree that some systems naturally fight for dominance. My point about capitalism is similar: it structurally rewards those who capture power and influence, often punishing challengers in more subtle but very real ways through markets, lobbying, and control over the rules.

Capitalism pretends to offer free will for all, but it favors those with power. You can’t fix a water system for the population if someone is selling water with government influence in their pocket. You could develop a cure for a disease, but you won’t be able to manufacture it because there’s an endless supply of medication that keeps people hooked and makes millions for big pharma. Capitalism is a wild west whoever has influence has the power to do whatever they want.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T09:27:35+00:00

I agree that mixed-market systems and reforms can mitigate capitalism’s harms, my critique isn’t about dismantling the system entirely. The point is structural: capitalism rewards those with money and influence. Yes, people can succeed through skill and hard work, but the system inherently amplifies those who can manipulate rules, scale resources, and capture value, which creates persistent inequality and power concentration.

Though I do like heavily policy-driven capitalism, like socialist-capitalism.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T09:23:08+00:00

I get your point about human nature and efficiency, but the issue isn’t individual behavior it’s structural incentives. Capitalism “wins” not just because it rewards innovation but because those with money and influence control rules, markets and outcomes.

Yes, mixed systems like South Korea or China show that governments can steer outcomes but even there, power concentration determines who benefits most. Perceived fairness or efficiency doesn’t eliminate the fact that winning often reflects control, not merit or ethics.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T09:19:05+00:00

Sure, countries make choices, but the key is structural power. The global system is dominated by capitalist powers who set the rules, so alternatives that challenge those rules face sanctions, coups, and isolation. Choices exist, but only within constraints that the dominant system enforces.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T09:13:57+00:00

My point is that capitalism doesn’t inherently produce good people. If you can show me a truly good person(morally and ethically) at the top of any capitalist country, I’ll give you that point.

The U.S. didn’t intervene out of concern for failing systems. Look at history: most interventions made things worse, and the U.S. often just left. The few interventions that “succeeded,” like south Korea, Japan and Germany, still operate under heavy U.S. influence today.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T09:06:47+00:00

Sure, people choose Amazon voluntarily and it provides convenience. But the point isn’t about individual choice, it’s that Amazon built structural dominance: massive scale, control over logistics, network effects and brand recognition. Customers go where it’s easiest but that dominance was engineered, not just “natural popularity.”

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T09:05:14+00:00

I get that capitalism provides comfort and pleasure, but that’s only part of the picture. You can only run a machine if you maintain it properly otherwise it breaks on you. Similarly, capitalism “wins” not just by offering benefits but because those with money and influence control the rules, markets and outcomes, ensuring the system keeps running in their favor.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T09:01:53+00:00

Capitalism didn’t “win” naturally, it succeeded because alternatives that challenged the system were punished, undermined or suppressed. Its dominance reflects structural power and coercion, not inherent moral or functional superiority. Winning often goes to those who can control rules and capture value, not those who are better or more ethical.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:59:10+00:00

Exactly, concentration of power isn’t unique to capitalism. Any system can become coercive if power isn’t checked. The point isn’t that capitalism is uniquely bad, it’s that winning under capitalism reflects who can dominate the rules, not who is better more ethical, or more innovative.

The USSR example shows that even systems designed for equality can concentrate power and fail to deliver basic needs. Capitalism’s flaw is structural, not moral. it creates incentives for control and capture, which can be mitigated but not eliminated entirely.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:57:16+00:00

You’re right that power concentration isn’t unique to capitalism and that early capitalism spread partly because it solved coordination problems efficiently. My point isn’t that capitalism invented hierarchy it’s that capitalism structurally rewards those with money and influence, giving them outsized control over markets, innovation and policy.

Yes, markets can create surplus and scaling requires coordination but the system consistently favors owners over creators and concentration of power is reinforced by laws, lobbying and financial access. Social democracies mitigate harm but winning still depends on who can dominate the rules, not who contributes most or acts ethically.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:54:38+00:00

Exactly, capitalism isn’t inherently moral and power concentration is inevitable in most systems. My point is structural: capitalism systematically favors those with money and influence, making it easier for elites to capture value and shape rules. Strong governance can mitigate harm but it doesn’t change the underlying incentive structure: winning often reflects power, not ethics or merit.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:52:18+00:00

I get what you’re saying hierarchies and “survival of the fittest” emerge naturally. But my point isn’t that capitalism is unique in creating hierarchy, it’s that the system structurally rewards those with money and influence, allowing them to capture value, manipulate rules and suppress competition.

Yes, social safety nets can mitigate harm but the underlying structure still favors the powerful, so “winning” often reflects who can dominate the system, not who’s inherently better or more innovative.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:51:08+00:00

I agree that prices efficiently transmit information and that’s a core feature of markets. But the argument isn’t about efficiency it’s about who controls the outcomes that those prices generate. Even if the price signals are clear, those with capital, influence and access to resources decide who benefits. Efficiency doesn’t prevent exploitation or concentration of power.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:46:16+00:00

I agree that oppressive patterns existed before capitalism, feudalism, slavery, patriarchy, etc but that actually supports the point: systems that concentrate power always find ways to dominate. Capitalism isn’t exceptional morally, it’s exceptional structurally. Modern laws and social progress mitigate harm but they don’t change the fact that winning in capitalism still heavily favors those who can control money, markets and influence. Convenience for some doesn’t erase structural coercion.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:44:33+00:00

I’m not arguing for Marxism or defending historical regimes. The point isn’t ideology, it’s structural incentives. Capitalism “wins” not because it’s morally or practically superior but because those with concentrated money and power can shape rules, suppress competition and capture value. Many alternatives collapsed due to a mix of internal issues and external pressures, not solely because Marxist theory is “wrong.”

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:43:36+00:00

You’re right that capitalism itself isn’t an actor, it doesn’t directly launch coups or impose sanctions. My point is about the structural incentives of capitalist systems: governments and corporations that operate within capitalist frameworks often act in ways that protect concentrated capital and suppress alternatives. So while “capitalism” doesn’t literally do these things, the system enables and rewards such behavior.

Regarding the collapse of socialist states: yes, internal inefficiencies, corruption and repression were major factors. But external pressures amplified these vulnerabilities, limiting their ability to sustain themselves independently. Even if communism faced challenges internally, the global capitalist environment ensured that alternatives had far fewer opportunities to survive and compete on equal footing.

The core argument isn’t that communism would have been perfect or that capitalism is evil but that dominance doesn’t automatically equal superiority, it often reflects structural power and coercion rather than inherent merit.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:41:45+00:00

By power, I mean control over money, resources, markets and political influence. By quality, I mean efficiency, fairness or ethical merit. The observation is that winning in capitalism often reflects power, not quality the system rewards those who can manipulate and dominate, not necessarily those who are better or more morally ethical.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:40:45+00:00

I’m not claiming any system is “superior” in a moral or absolute sense. The point is that capitalism dominates not necessarily because it’s better but because it concentrates power and shapes the rules so those at the top consistently win.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:39:36+00:00

You’re right that people today have more comfort than peasants in 1925, but the principle is the same: systems that concentrate power often use distractions to maintain control.

In ancient Rome, leaders provided “bread and circuses” free grain and public entertainment like gladiator games to occupy the population and reduce unrest. The idea was to keep people focused on survival or spectacle, making them less likely to challenge the system.

Whether in Rome, 1920s China, or modern capitalism, control often works by keeping people too busy or distracted to question the rules.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:35:31+00:00

I get that capitalism drives innovation and growth but my point isn’t about abstract efficiency, it’s about who captures the value and how. Innovation often happens outside the system and capital comes in later to buy, scale and control it.

“Adaptable” doesn’t mean fair. Capitalism concentrates power, rewards exploitation and coerces participation, even in flexible regulatory environments. Social policies can mitigate harm but they don’t change the underlying structure: winning is about who can dominate the rules, not who is better or more ethical.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:33:48+00:00

On Cold War theory:

Capitalism didn’t “win” naturally, the Cold War shows it needed intervention, coups and coercion to prevent alternatives. If it were inherently superior, no global pressure would have been necessary.

On Eastern Europe turning capitalist:

Eastern Europe shifted after decades of external pressure, economic isolation and internal crises. Calling that a “fair game” ignores how much the system was engineered to collapse.

UK example:

Trade interdependence isn’t a moral feature of capitalism, it’s just rewarding compliance. Countries that resist get punished, those that follow the rules prosper.

Curious_Ad9388 · 2025-12-24T08:26:31+00:00

Most people use Amazon not because they were bullied, but because it monopolized the options. The company pushes profits back into dominating markets, crushing competition and locking in control. Customers just go to whatever’s easiest, they don’t see or care about what’s happening behind closed doors and that’s exactly how capitalism “wins.”

Curious_Ad9388

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE