While an authentically equal economy may be perhaps Utopian[1], those from all corners o’ the Quadratic Inanity[2] who usually use this argument to bolster each o’ their own particular form o’ benign capitalism are hypocritical, for capitalism without corruption is not e’en Utopian, but flat-out logically impossible. Hence why it’s ne’er existed, while true equality did sorta maybe for a short time in Spain once, a’least.
It’s so obvious that capitalism @ its core is corrupt that only American’s deep discomfort with questioning the core principles o’ their dominant ideology, regardless o’ truth & logic, could ‘splain the prevalence o’ this mythical meritorious capitalism—or “equal opportunity without equal outcome,” as conservatives call it. & it’s not just the right that hinges on it: liberals like Paul Krugman & Joseph Stiglitz in their books make lofty promises o’ returning to some mythical fair capitalism that they imagine existed in the glorious 50s—well, to whites, a’least—thanks to moderate welfare & regulation. It’s probably true that these—the welfare & regulation, not the white supremacy—do improve society o’er laissez-faire capitalism, if the success o’ Nordic social democracy is an indication; but corruption is not simply a relative circumstance that’s worse than what’s possible, but an absolute circumstance that applies regardless o’ what worse alternatives may exist. In truth, ending political/economic—I only use both words ‘cause o’ westerners’ wrongheaded insistence that they’re different—corruption would require change so radical that it’d probably require outright equality, which I’ve already states is probably Utopian. If that is the, understandable, belief o’ moderate liberals, then they should honestly acknowledge that the true end o’ corruption is impossible, but that their moderate reforms are the best people can hope for. Showing policies’ relative strength compared to other existing policies doesn’t prove those policies’ absolute quality.
What makes capitalism inherently corrupt? The answer’s hid in the name: capital, the creation o’ wealth from wealth, whether investment, interest, $ itself, or through using property to gain an advantage. The definition o’ a corrupt system is that the output affects the input—a’least in a positive way. This is ‘cause it creates a self-perpetuating cycle o’ victory creative further victory. This is why the equal opportunity that conservatives tout is necessary for meritoriousness: in order to be truly competitive, all contestants must start @ the same position. Obviously wealth—money & property—is the prime outcome, the measure o’ success; thus, any instance in which wealth itself creates opportunities for wealth-creation, including the common methods I’ve mentioned earlier, is corrupt. This obviously wouldn’t fit within conservatives’ call for equal opportunity: since opportunities such as investment are obviously influenced by how much wealth one has, then equal opportunity & equal outcome are the same.
What’s funny is that this is e’en mo’ obvious when one looks @ a common metaphor mainstream economists use to describe money’s affect on “the market”: $ votes. Consumers—people with money, & thus some success already—control how the market runs, which controls how money is outputted. Such a system is the equivalent o’ gerrymandering: the rich controlling the criteria that decides who gets to become rich. &, as economists themselves clearly agree, it’s the core o’ market systems.
Footnotes:
[1] Those who argue that Leninist countries like the former Soviet Union & North Korea’s evil were due to excess democracy or equality should merely be pointed & laughed @; their ideology has clearly left them immune to any semblance o’ reality.
[2] Conservatism, laissez-faire libertarianism, centrism, & liberalism—the 4 mainstream ideologies.
