this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
768 points (99.2% liked)

World News

38607 readers
2798 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

More than 11% of the world’s more than 2,000 billionaires have run for election or become politicians, according to a study highlighting the growing power and influence of the super-wealthy.

While billionaires have had mixed success at the ballot box in the U.S., billionaires around the world have a “strong track record” of winning elections and “lean to the Right ideologically,” said the study, which is by three professors at Northwestern University.

“Billionaire politicians are a shockingly common phenomenon,” the study said. “The concentration of massive wealth in the hands of a tiny elite has understandably caused many observers to worry that the ‘super-rich have super-sized political influence.’”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

He had bad solutions but his criticisms of capitalism are spot on.

Also I prefer to blame the authoritarian strongmen who consolidated power as opposed to a guy that advocated against hierarchy. Is Adam Smith culpable for the Bengal famine?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

As an anti-capitalist, I disagree. He conflated the role of the employer with the owner of the means of production, which led him to the mistaken conclusion that rejecting capitalist appropriation requires rejecting private property per se. It's really the employment contract that enables capitalist appropriation and exploitative property relations. There are other reasons to oppose private ownership, but that is another story. The classical laborists' criticisms are spot on not Marx's

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago

criticisms of capitalism are spot on.

His predictions did not follow reality whatsoever.