Asklemmy

what if it was me

The Post apocalyptic nature of alot of media makes me think that people can more easily Imagine the fall of human civilization then we can a better world where everyone's needs are met.

To the 1%, losing all your wealth and power be an apocalypse, so it is in their best interests that everyone would be thinking the same as well. No matter how much better we all would be together otherwise.

People who defend billionaires either have a vested interest, have actually bought that they're 1000x smarter than normal people, or have some (possibly vague) abstract moral position that overrules the basic idea of fairness. Often it's more than one.

Capitalism, as the term is commonly used, is poorly defined enough that you have to specify what it means here. Is it any kind of market? Is it large corporations? Is it every interaction being purely voluntary (somehow)? If you consider a big Soviet firm like Gosbank a "corporation", all three could also be socialist depending on who you ask.

Since this is .ml, for the classical Marxist definition that it's "private ownership of the means of production", the arguments are mainly against the proposed alternatives, or just that private vs. personal is hard to demarcate, and nobody wants to share a toothbrush.

Our retirement is tied to it.

About defending capitalism (and not billionaires - who more often than not abuse this system). Some of us lived in other systems. And we understand any other system is way way way way worse.

There are however a lot of problems with capitalism and should be held on a very short leash. Or else monopoly happens. The most effective actions to keep capitalism at bay: strong anti-trust laws, strong worker protection (this includes a lot of stuff), wealth tax.

And be aware there are many flavours of calitalism. Most commonly people in USA are the most extreme where you have really "long leash". And people see such capitalism as failing and want to replace whole system.

I guess the central premise of capitalism is that while every society has its haves and have nots, capitalism is supposed to encourage the haves to invest in the economy rather than hoarding their wealth. In return, they stand to get even wealthier, but a stronger economy ought to generate more employment and generally improve the lives of commoners as well.

Unfortunately, in a never-ending quest to make wealth-generation more efficient and streamlined, employment is being eliminated through automation, outsourcing, etc. and the system is eating itself out from the inside. I doubt it can persist much longer, but what will replace it remains unclear. I pray that it will be something sensible that ensures everyone has their basic needs met and can still find rewarding pursuits in life. But there are so many ways it could go very wrong, and that includes staying on the current course.

Many people do not grasp the sheer size of the disparity between the truly wealthy and everyone else.

Many reasons. One major factor imho is the belief or illusion to be living in a meritocracy. Which would mean, that someone who's rich has to have earned it and therefore criticism must stem from envy or jealousy. The same belief fuels the ideology of thinking of poor people to just be lazy leeches on society.

I assume they think they will be able to achieve the same status in the game that's designed to literally oppress them and make them think they are cared by the billionaires.