Prognostication

I hope this won't come true. But a scifi book I read planted the idea in my head and I can't get it out. 

In 2028 there will be a US Presidential election as usual. Of course, the present incumbent cannot stand, so the Republicans will go through the motions of finding and fielding a candidate. 

However, on the day, rumours of election subversion (including faked video footage) will begin from early on. There will be little time for fact checking. 

Late that the night, just as it looks like a winner is emerging, the president will solemnly announce to the world that the election has been interfered with and the results cannot be accepted. The counting will have to cease. He will point to the history of interference in recent US elections and say that this is just the next level of attack on US Democracy. He will say 

"Never fear, good citizens, I am announcing a new election on [some date in the near future]. Let the planning and logistics commence immediately. Democracy will win! And in the meantime, I will graciously stay on as a caretaker, just till the next election. I'm so gracious." 

The liberal media will report strong scepticism or even outright hostility but it won't matter. The authoritarian media will say "We told you there was election interference." After all, they helped to create the lies about election interference to begin with. There will be so much going on that no one will be able to focus.

Foreign leaders are clearly terrified of the President, they will wring their hands over the obviously faked election tampering, and sternly state that the President must hold an election as soon as possible. In fact they have no leverage on him and he knows he can safely ignore them when it comes to domestic policy. And he's called an election anyway. 

At the same time, lawsuits will rain down to try stop the President. But, as President, the incumbent has the high ground already. And he has already announced a new election, so can say he has done the right thing. And the fake evidence will be the best that money can buy. 

He is also now a hardened veteran of the US court system that can run rings around any liberal lawyer. As before, he doesn't have to win in court, he just has to delay until he gets more leverage. 

The day of the new election comes and people rush out to vote, again. However, once again the enemies of democracy will mysteriously strike and the election will have to be set aside. Now the President says,

"Well, we will have to look into this before we can announce another election. But we will be having a joint commission of the legislature (run by his cronies there) and the Justice department will also deputise 3 supreme court justices (appointed by the incumbent) to run a parallel investigation. Once we hear back from them, we'll announce a new election. I promise you we will get to the bottom of this blatant election tampering. And you know I always keep my promises."

Then nothing much happens for a year or two. The commissions are lived-streamed and become morbidly fascinating. But the picture that emerges will be confusing and no one will really understand what officials are saying. The initial adrenaline will have worn off. The media cannot help themselves and will have moved on to more exciting news. And sections of the media wildly contradict each other anyway, so no one knows what to think.

The situation starts to normalise.

People are still complaining and courts cases mount, but the backlog is huge and none will be decided within 2 years. The President doesn't have to win, as long as he doesn't lose. A delay is all that he  needs. 

If another date is announced, something will go wrong with that one also. If a new election is not announced, then a new diversion, will be announced. Perhaps the USA will need to go to war with another country? Maybe China? Or more likely a smaller fish. Maybe it's time to liberate Cuba from communism and turn it back into a casino for wealthy Americans? 

Whatever it is, the President will throw something hugely divisive on the table and let people fight it out, while privately not giving a shit about it. 

The President is a master of delaying and avoiding consequences. As long as the President has support from the Republicans and Christians, which he does, he could stay in power this way indefinitely. Without even declaring martial law. And that's a possibility too, if the "threat to democracy" is serious enough. 

Although it is still de rigueur to treat the President as a joke, an idiot, and an embarrassment, the man has been President of the United States, twice. Fool me once... 

We need to wise up and start treating him as what he is: a dangerous sociopath. A threat to society and to civilisation. 

He is not Hitler, but he is our "Hitler". Yes? 

Is Capitalism Better Than Other Systems?

 Let’s start with a few definitions.

Capital is accumulated wealth above and beyond what one needs to live well (and have a nest egg). Most rich people inherited their (initial) capital.

A capitalist is someone whose income depends not on work, but on gambling with some part of their hoard of accumulated wealth (aka “investments”).

Capitalism is the ideology that holds

1. the accumulation of wealth is the highest good; and thus leads to the greatest happiness (utilitarianism)
2. Commerce is the highest form of human culture (plutolatry: “wealth worship”).
3. those with the most wealth are most competent and temperamentally suited to rule (plutocracy “rule by the wealthy”)
4. all human interactions are transactions (transactionalism)

As far as the question goes:

Capitalism—the combination of plutolatry, plutocracy, utilitarianism, and transactionalism—is best for people who have capital. Because they are the only ones who can come out on top. They have all the influence and power.

For anyone who has no capital—who has to work for a living—capitalism is the worst possible alternative. Because without capital a person has no influence, let alone power.

Like all tyrants, the plutocrats fear being outnumbered and overwhelmed by the workers. So they keep us divided and confused. As ought to be evident from the internet.

My Answer to the Question: Who owns property in socialism?

Trying to discuss socialism in terms drawn from the capitalist ideology—whence terms like “own” and “property”—is not that easy. It’s like trying to discuss science using Biblical terminology.

Although you’ve never known anything else, the jargon of capitalism is not neutral.

The jargon you use is based on an ideology. In that ideology, working people are just another resource to be exploited. And thus the ideas that such terms represent are entirely foreign to socialism.

What we generally mean by “owning” is this: Using violence or the threat of it to exclude other people from using something valuable, for the life time of the person claiming exclusive rights. The owner class have set up institutions and systems—laws, police, courts—to normalise their violence and protect their ownership from their neighbours. Violence is normalised and institutionalised in capitalism.

By the way, this is also why capitalism has produced a discourse of “individual rights”. It’s fundamentally about the right of the owner class to own everything and their right to be the ruling class.

Socialists often emphasise our mutual obligations rather than our individual rights. And vest rulership in the collective.

The people who own things for a living and the people who work for a living tend to define “property” differently. The owning class require exclusive use of a good, because that is their livelihood and they make no other contribution. In this way, the thing owned becomes an “asset”. And

The socialist critique of capitalism is really centred around “property” in the sense of assets that fund the luxurious lifestyle of the owner class. We aren’t concerned with the tools of your trade, your clothing, or your knickknacks. Your stuff, your essentially worthless stuff, is yours, for all the good it will do you. Our focus is on assets and the system that the owner class have set up to protect their assets.

The working class tend not to own assets because the start-up costs are prohibitive. The owning class generally inherit their stake. For example, it used to be that working people could afford to buy a house with a mortgage - a long term loan in which one pays 100% or more of the cost of the house in interest, so the bank doubles their money with no work. This is what my father did (mother did not work and in those days that was affordable). But this is being taken away in order to fund more billionaires. And keep in mind that one autistic American billionaire just spent $250 million to help get Trump elected and thus get a seat at the table deciding how the violence of the state will be employed against citizens.

So most of the stuff that the worker class “own” is not the same kind of “property” because they can derive no income from it. Indeed, for non-asset goods the value usually declines over time.

For most socialists, certain things that are currently considered “property”, are thought of differently. Land is not something one can legitimately “own” for example. As a socialist society we would collectively negotiate the best use of the land. And we might divide it up, on a temporary basis, between people based on need and capacity. One may have exclusive access to land only by the consent of everyone. And it would be nuts not to grant exclusive use to farmers, for example, because they need it to grow food. But it would mean that incompetent farmers might be moved on to some other form of livelihood, by general agreement.

Just as the land itself is a good whose exploitation should benefit everyone. Similarly with what comes out of the land. Things such as oil, minerals, and diamonds cannot be legitimately owned by anyone merely on the basis of their willingness to use violence or the violence inherent in the system to exclude others.

These things exist whether someone owns them or not. And simply owning them contributes nothing to society. Indeed, exclusive ownership of assets is generally to detriment of the society. In the USA, for example, some 44 million live in poverty. Some 26 million don’t have any health insurance. And some 2 million people are incarcerated (the highest proportion in the industrialised world). All this in the richest country in the world.

In capitalism, people have no value unless they work to make the owner class richer. And since they are only ever willing to pay the minimum, for working people capitalism is a race to the bottom. At the end of the game of Monopoly, one person owns everything and everyone else is dead. It’s a quite a vision of society.

In socialism, the owner class make no contribution to society despite their evident capacity to do so. Therefore, they should get no benefit from society. And society should definitely not agree to their having exclusive access to a vast hoard of wealth while their neighbours starve or die of treatable illnesses. 

Why did Trump win? (For anyone who hasn't got it yet).

Since 2000, the median cost of healthcare, education, and housing have all risen by 250-300%. New cars are up ~170%. The median wage has risen by just 25%. 

Something like 3 out of 5 of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. If they lose that paycheck, they're homeless. And US welfare is minimal. 

Since Reaganomics took hold ca 1980, the poor are either in poverty or one small step away. Middle-income earners can no longer afford a middle-class lifestyle, i.e. they are now poor. 

Meanwhile billionaires are ostentatiously flourishing and using their vast wealth to gain political influence. 

Reagan also radicalised the "evangelicals" so that they see a real prospect of a theocracy in the US. A program they associated with Republicans in government. And Trump delivered them the Supreme Court last time. 

Skilled propaganda has the Democrats taking the blame for the failures of neoliberalism (btw... in just the same way that 19th century liberalism failed). Moreover, they seemed to run on "business as usual" platform. They didn't seem to acknowledge how bad things are the majority. 

Add in ongoing paranoia and xenophobia engendered by the 9/11 attacks and Covid. 

Add in the profound and growing distrust in politicians generally... for all the obvious reasons.  

The fact is that for most Americans, and certainly for all of the least affluent, America is not a great place to live anymore. 

Then along came Trump. Promising to make it great again, running against a party who were insisting that "everything is fine", we just need to tweak things a little. 

It's not like this is rocket science. If you don't look after your citizens, they will eventually revolt. This is after all, the founding myth of the USA. Voting Trump may have been the laziest citizen revolt in history, but a revolt it was. 

Unfortunately, as far as replacing failed neoliberalism goes, fascism is the worst possible choice. But fascism was the only choice on offer. And in any culture, there's always a sizeable minority who, when stressed, think a fascist is the best choice. 

My Answer to the question "What does it mean to be on the left"?

Simplifying somewhat, there are people who work for a living and people who own things for a living. The vast majority of people are required by random circumstance to work; while a fortunate few inherit or acquire enough wealth that they don't need to work.

On “the left”, we believe that people who work for a living, the majority, should be in charge, and that public goods (like land, oil, gold etc) should be owned collectively and exploited for the benefit of all.

We believe that people who own things for a living are simply parasites who benefit from the work of others without making any contribution. Political systems designed by and for people who own things for a living are invariably systems of institutionalised violence and tyranny.

We believe that no one ever gets to the point of owning things for a living by "their own efforts" or by "working hard". In reality, a community of humans is interdependent: we all rely on each other. Rich people are invariably born into fortunate circumstances and exploit everyone around them to get into a position of owning stuff for a living. Wealth is not a measure of value, but of luck and cunning.

We believe that work is necessary and that given the necessity, everyone should be able to live a comfortable life by whatever contribution they are capable of making. No one in our society should ever go hungry. 

This can be contrasted with “the right”, who believe that people who own things for a living, the tiny minority, should be in charge. Public goods are amongst the most valuable stuff that the people who own things for a living own and claim exclusive access to. They believe that exploitation of public goods should only benefit the owners.

People who own things for a living are often unwilling or unable to acknowledge the contributions that friends, family, educators, coaches, and especially workers, have made to their success. Indeed, people who own things for a living see workers as a burden and an expense. One result is that they aim to eliminate as many workers as possible, or to replace them with machines and computers.

On the left, we recognise that owning stuff does not lead to contentment or happiness. Nor does owning stuff make anyone wise or trustworthy. Hoarding is a recognised mental illness, if it’s newspapers or string, but if one hoards wealth, it is somehow a measure of “success”. A billionaire is simply someone with a mental illness that used the leverage of their wealth to assert the normality of their pathological condition. No one can earn enough wealth for 1000 or a million lifetimes. And hoards are, in any case, an extremely inefficient distribution and use of resources. Billionaires are economically incoherent in a country that has millions of people living poverty.

On the right they are not bothered by people living in poverty or even starving to death. They will happily pay a worker considerably less than it costs to stay alive; or nothing, if they can get away with it. And at the same time, they are vocally critical of attempts to uplift workers to a position in which they can stay alive. If the government gets involved in helping those who work for a living, those who own things for a living are apt to become apoplectically angry (while with the other hand greedily accepting lucrative government contracts and subsidies).

One might say that people who own things for a living have a Hobbesian view of humanity as chaotic and requiring tyranny. And people who work tend to a Rousseauean view in which humanity is better off without any form of tyranny.

On the left, we think that if all the people who worked disappeared overnight, the people who own stuff for a living would probably be dead inside a month. But if the people who own stuff for a living all disappeared, it would only benefit those who work for a living. Working serves a purpose and benefits the community. Owning does not serve a purpose and does not benefit the community.  

At best, owning things is a completely and utterly useless activity for any human being to pursue. At worst it is actually threatening life on earth via climate change, pollution, and ecosystem destruction.

Unfortunately a substantial portion of people who work for a living are convinced, by pro-owning-stuff propaganda, that they can pursue happiness through owning stuff. However, this never leads to owning stuff for a living, because the fancy stuff that workers buy—cars, TVs, computers—doesn’t provide them with an income. Indeed, consumer goods are next to worthless almost as soon as get them home,  they are designed to break and/or fail, and they often end up costing the owner money. Still, a lot of workers are enthusiastic supporters of people who own stuff, and of rule by the owners of stuff, because now they too have a lot of stuff.

On the left we don’t see how those people who own things for a living can possibly rule to our benefit, since at best they see us as a burden and an expense; and at worse they see us as resources to be exploited. The phrase human resources is a a chilling reminder of this. Given power, history shows that people who own things for a living arrange whole societies solely to their own benefit. 

And all of this has been blindingly obvious

to those on the left for around 150 years.

The great problem on the left is disagreement over details of how to put workers in charge, leading to militant factionalism. As, (former) Marxist-Lenninist, Alexei Sayle, once put it: “The people we hated the most were the wrong kind of socialists”. This is beautifully illustrated—at least as far as the UK is concerned—in the political satire of Monty Python’s Life of Brian (which has fuck all to do with religion as far as I can see).

This is one way of talking about what it means to me to be “on the left”. I don’t particular identify with labels like “socialist”, “communist”, etc. I’m certainly not a Marxist, though I do think that Marx’s 150 year old articulation of the problems of capitalism are as relevant as ever. 

I’m probably some kind of anarchist, in the sense that I don’t think having a ruling class is necessary at all. We are grown ups and we can govern ourselves, thanks all the same. But if we must be ruled, then let it be workers who rule, not parasites who make no contribution beyond owning things that ought to be public goods anyway.

Responding to the Question of how and when the US Republican Party Embraced Fascism.

Republicans consciously drove the process. This was not an accident, it was a plan. And not a secret plan. It was all done out in the open.

Some key dates are

1971: Nixon solves his Vietnam problem by crashing out of the gold standard and ending the post-war economic consensus. This creates a vacuum that is filled by far-right intellections, notably Hayek and Friedman.

Robert Powell issues his now famous memo—outlining his plan for a neoliberal revolution in the USA which puts business men firmly in control of everything. Something like this plan is eventually implemented by the Republicans and their cronies.

For example, they end up totally controlling how economics is taught at all levels: now all economics students only ever learn Hayek and Friedman and other far-right economists.

1973: The first oil shock caused by oil producing countries in Arabia taking back control of their oil from the US and the UK.

When Iran tries to follow suit it was sentenced to 25 years of rule by US-backed dictator. When Venezuela tries it, they are virtually wiped off the map. The House of Saud prevails, and begins enthusiastically exporting what we now call Islamism to the world in the hope of converting the world to Islam and destroying the unbelievers in the USA.

The first post-war recessions hit and change the economic landscape of the world. And this creates a crisis of confidence in the post-Keynesian consensus. Enter the neoliberals. When economists, journalists, and politicians have all been indoctrinated in the same monoculture, there is no meaningful discussion about alternatives. They all believe that neoliberal economics is the only viable alternative.

This situation never gets better. Wages stagnate, US jobs are exported to Mexico and China (the USA’s bitter enemy), and yet the people who own things for a living become incalculably better off at the expense of literally everyone else.

1979: Reagan, fearing that he will lose to incumbent Jimmy Carter, has his henchmen make a deal with Gerry Falwell and other Televangelists, to radicalise and mobilise their previously apolitical cult members to support the Republicans in return for the Republicans pushing a fundamentalist Christian political agenda. They believe they have been promised a theocracy in the USA and begin agitating to bring about the Apocalypse. (And of course, Trump hands these people their greatest victory in the SCOTUS striking down Roe v Wade).

On taking office, Reagan appoints disciple of the Ayn Rand cult, Alan Greenspan, as Sect of the Treasury. Greenspan is one of the most extreme anarcho-capitalists on the planet. He tears down all impediments to exploiting the shit out of citizens. Later, Greenspan convinces Bill Clinton not to fulfill any of this campaign promises because “there is no money [in the richest country in the world]”.

Throughout this period the USA is constantly at war, but most especially in Central and Southern America. The USA has toppled more democratically elected foreign governments that it has elected presidents.

At this point the writing was already on the wall. And one can find, for example, Frank Zappa already loudly complaining in TV interviews about the USA becoming “a fascist theocracy”.

2001: having fought all their wars in other people’s back yards, the Americans are shocked when a group of Saudi nationals (trained by former US ally Osama bin Laden) carry out a daring plan to fly planes into iconic buildings. Two out of three succeed. About 3000 US citizens are killed. Which is less that domestic terrorism

The USA attacks Afghanistan, kills in the order of 200,000 innocent civilians, summarily executes Bin in Pakistan (where he has lived for many years), then withdraws leaving the Taliban in charge. The total cost of this pointless exercise to the USA was in excess of $2 trillion.

For good measure they utterly destroy the civil infrastructure of Iraq and leave it a smoking ruin. At a cost of $3 trillion.

Government debt goes up, so they “have no choice” but to slash budgets and taxes for people who own things for a living. Cutting taxes for the rich is a central policy platform of neoliberalism (especially in the USA).

Since 2000 the US median wage has risen by 25%. But the median cost of healthcare, medicine, and education has all risen by 250–300%. The median cost of a new car has risen by 177%. Middle income earners can no longer afford a middle class lifestyle

Domestically, 9/11 flips a switch in the hearts of many Americans. They start thinking “We are under attack!” “We are not safe.”

At this point, fascism and the collapse of democracy in the US are more or less certain (though few of us could see it at the time). The paranoia does not subside because far-right agitators are the most paranoid of all. Suddenly xenophobia is the rule in formerly tolerant and welcoming Americans. Now all foreigners are viewed with suspicion.

The police become increasingly militarised. School shootings become an epidemic that the USA seems unable to do anything about. “At the same time, as of 2020, right-wing extremist terrorism accounted for the majority of terrorist attacks and plots in the US and has killed more people in the continental United States since the September 11 attacks than Islamic terrorism” — Wikipedia.

The switch never got flipped back to its peacetime setting. The USA now sees itself as being at war with the rest of the world. And they have elected a leader who wants to lead this war, against worthy Democratic opponents who refuse to acknowledge the problems that obsess Middle America. At around the same time as the US succumbs to the paranoia of 9/11, middle income earners are realising that they cannot afford a middle class lifestyle any more.

The average American can objectively say that their way of life is under attack. What no one ever seems to get is that the problem is imperialism and neoliberalism. By treating everyone with contempt, the Americans have sowed the seeds of their own destruction. But most especially, if you shank the middle classes, they will organise against you.

It was foolish and reprehensible for the Democrats to run a business-as-usual campaign when middle America is both paranoid and broke; while the 1% are becoming ever more ostentatious in their conspicuous consumption and ever less philanthropic.

But you have to remember that Democrats could have defeated fascism at any point along the way, if they had taken it seriously. They did not. They thought Trump running was funny. Then he won, and they were like “how could this happen?”. Even now, after Trump has won a second term, they are like, “this could never happen, so it didn’t happen”. Fool me once…

Meanwhile confirmed drug addled, serial rapist, and fascist bully-boy, Matt Gaetz is set to be AG and thus the principal weapon in Trump’s revenge against the Democrats: key figures and institutions are going to be targeted by the AG and the DOJ. It would not surprise me if, four years from now the Democratic Party is officially denounced as a terrorist organisation and their assets seized by the state. They won’t wait 4 years like the hapless Democrats. 

Authoritarian Leaders and Authoritarian Followers

Fascist Leaders

Jason Stanley, in his work on fascism, particularly in his book How Fascism Works, focuses on the mechanics of fascist propaganda and the social dynamics that enable fascism to take root in societies. His approach is less about defining fascism as a rigid ideology and more about examining the strategies and tactics that fascist movements use to gain and consolidate power. Stanley identifies a range of rhetorical and psychological techniques that foster division, undermine truth, and exploit fears, laying the groundwork for fascist politics. Here are key aspects of his approach:

Us vs. Them Mentality: Stanley argues that fascism creates sharp divisions within society, often based on race, nationality, or religion, fostering a sense of in-group superiority and portraying out-groups as threats to purity or security.

Glorification of a Mythic Past: Fascism, according to Stanley, typically invokes an idealized past—a time of perceived national or racial purity—which is presented as something to be "restored," often through authoritarian means. This also involves a sense of victimhood in which "them" are the cause of the decline and attacking "them" is a way to restore former glory.

Anti-Intellectualism and Attacks on Truth: Fascist movements work to discredit objective facts, scientific knowledge, and intellectuals, creating an atmosphere where truth becomes a matter of opinion, and propaganda can easily fill the void.

Law and Order as a Cover for Oppression: Fascists often invoke "law and order" as a pretext for expanding authoritarian control, portraying themselves as protectors of stability while framing marginalized groups or political opponents as dangerous or criminal.

Populist Appeal and Conspiracy Theories: Stanley highlights that fascism often presents itself as a grassroots movement against corrupt elites, even when supported by powerful figures. Conspiracy theories, particularly ones about “enemies within,” are frequently used to build this narrative.

Stanley's approach is distinctive for its focus on fascism as a set of political tools and strategies rather than as a traditional ideology. This allows him to show how elements of fascist politics can appear in various contexts without requiring a complete alignment with historical fascist regimes.

Followers

Karen Stenner's approach to authoritarianism, particularly in her book The Authoritarian Dynamic, focuses on psychological predispositions rather than ideological commitments. Stenner argues that authoritarianism is not necessarily tied to specific political ideologies but is, instead, a psychological response to perceived threats to social order and cohesion. Her main contributions include:

Authoritarian Personality and Psychological Predisposition: Stenner proposes that some individuals have a latent authoritarian predisposition that surfaces in response to certain triggers, especially situations of perceived instability, diversity, or moral decline.

Preference for Order and Conformity: According to Stenner, authoritarians have a high need for order, predictability, and social uniformity. This makes them more likely to support authoritarian policies or leaders that promise to enforce conformity and maintain cohesion in the face of perceived disorder.

Response to Threat: Rather than being inherently active, this authoritarian tendency is typically dormant and only activated in response to perceived threats to social cohesion, such as rapid social changes, increased diversity, or moral conflict.

Distinction Between Authoritarianism and Conservatism: Stenner draws a distinction between conservatism and authoritarianism, noting that conservatism seeks to maintain traditional institutions, while authoritarianism seeks to enforce uniformity and obedience, even if it means changing traditional structures.

Normative Threat and Activation: Stenner emphasizes the role of “normative threat,” which includes anything that challenges traditional norms, values, or group homogeneity. When these threats are perceived, individuals with an authoritarian predisposition become more supportive of authoritarian policies to restore social unity and moral order.

Stenner’s approach underscores that authoritarianism is less about fixed ideological positions and more about a psychological inclination towards order and uniformity that activates under perceived societal threats.

Capitalism is Consuming the Planet.

Capital is an accumulation and hoarding of wealth over and above what is required for a comfortable life. Wealth includes money, of course, but it often takes the form of assets, especially land, gold, and precious objects. Anything that a bank would count as collateral for a loan. Saving for a rainy day doesn't count, as one always knows that one will spend savings eventually.

Capital is wealth that one doesn't need.

A Capitalist is someone who earns the bulk of their income from lending their capital to others in return for interest. The majority of capitalists inherit their capital from their parents.

Capitalism is the ideology which says that society should be run by and for capitalists.

Under capitalism, workers are an expense not an asset. Wages are subtracted from profits. Under capitalism, every workplace is a run like a feudal fief. And if you still earn a wage or salary, but you don't have surplus wealth, you are not a capitalist. You are merely a capitalist flunky (at best).

The aim of the ideology of capitalism is to generate more capital for fewer people. And it doesn't matter how many workers are killed, maimed or enslaved in the process. Wealth is the measure of all things.

Most countries have extensive laws to protect people from capitalists because capitalists has proven that they don't care about people. So we need labour laws preventing, mitigating, or requiring extra wages for overworking, dangerous work; equality laws so that men and women are paid the same for the same work; anti-discrimination laws to eliminate systemic prejudice, anti-pollution laws because capitalism has toxic waste products; antitrust laws to prevent monopolies, etc.

Capitalism is an acknowledged danger to society.

Free Market Capitalism adds a twist. Rather than laws to protect people from capitalism, neoliberals in the mid 20th century proposed that "markets" would solve all problems. People would no longer need laws to protect them from capitalists because if a capitalist was unethical, the market would reflect that by raising prices or reducing demand. No judgement was involved, it was the apotheosis of social Darwinism: survival of the richest.

Free Market Capitalism swept the world in a revolution beginning ca 1971, that eventually controlled all the major world governments (with a huge impact even in China), all of associated central banks, as well as global institutions such as the IMF and World Bank. Revolutionary measures to ensure the health of capitalism were instituted around the world: labour unions were disbanded and/or defanged; laws protecting us from capitalists were repealed; third world economies were forced to adopt free market policies. At the same time democratic reforms were entirely neglected. Dozens of small nations were forced deeper into poverty; large nations like Brazil, India, and Russia voted for fascism (the spectre of fascism is once again haunting us).

The only laws that were never addressed were taxations laws: the burden of taxation continues to fall on workers while capitalists exploit legal loopholes to avoid paying their share.

We are now much worse off than my parents generation economically, but at the same time we have now created some three thousand billionaires. This is not simply more wealth than one could spend in a lifetime, it's more than one could spend in a hundred lifetimes. If you earned the average wage for 1000 years and didn't spend any of it, you would still not be a billionaire.

Capitalism is killing the planet.

Meanwhile the waste products of capitalism are accumulating. Capitalism is driving systemic problems with potentially civilisation-ending consequences: global warming, rising levels of pollution, the mass destruction of ecosystems. It only takes disruption of the global food supply to cause widespread chaos, and it has already become significantly more challenging to grow food.

Poverty

Poverty is largely a consequence of European modes of living, especially their approach to private property. Perhaps the best account of this now is the new book The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow. Certainly it is the best account I have ever come across and the best history/philosophy book I’ve ever read without exception.

As the Europeans spread out and exported their worldview, they spread poverty around the world by expropriating all the land and resources that once made every human rich and they concentrated them in the hands of a few sociopaths with delusions of grandeur. Any resistance was met with brutal violence, resulting in numerous genocides and the enslavement of millions of people.

Another useful resource is David Spencer’s book on work. There is a fantastic little summary of the main point re poverty in this short article:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170108123038/http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/mercantilism_six_centuries_of_vilifying_the_poor

How do the rich keep being rich and the poor keep being poor?

Well, thanks for asking this, it turns out to be a fascinating story. It seems that the rich own and regulate the means of becoming rich. And they have done so for about 10,000 - 12,000 years or so.

About 600 years or so ago, the rich decided that it was important for the poor to have to work very hard indeed for a subsistence living and that they have little if any leisure time.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170108123038/http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/mercantilism_six_centuries_of_vilifying_the_poor

Because the rich own the means of getting rich, very few new people can break into richness without the prior approval of the rich and they tend to reserve richness for family and friends.

For example, during a short period in the late 20th Century, software development emerged as a path to new richness, but now the rich buy out newcomers well before they get rich. The path that made Elon Musk rich is now more or less closed now. The rich are busy closing loopholes that allow non-rich to become rich and opening loopholes to allow the rich to stay rich.

The poor can work as hard as they like, or as hard as the rich force them to work, and they will never be rich. Because not only do the rich own the means of getting rich, it turns out that they also own the products of the labour of the poor. The poor never get to keep the products of their labour. They have to give all of it to the rich, who then return as little as they can get away with, often considerably less than it takes to stay alive.

Even a small business person is extremely unlikely to become rich—most self-employed people are either already bankrupt or well on their way to becoming bankrupt. They are crushed by the rich.

In the middle, but much closer to the poor than the rich, we have the people who oversee the day to day business of ensuring that the poor remain poor. The poor can aspire to be overseers, but competition is fierce to be an overseer, and mostly the poor don’t get access to the education needed for that, and the educational requirements only go up over time.

The coup de grace is that, nowadays, the rich have convinced the poor that this is the best of all possible worlds. The poor are convinced that if they were in charge it would be chaos, mayhem, disaster, catastrophe, madness. So they conscientiously vote for the rich to be in control.