Capitalist, socialist, communist, it doesn’t matter so much

names polar opposite ways of running society, claims there is no difference, enlightened centrism gone mad.

This is more about greed, the fallibility of man

encouraged and rewarded by capitalism, not some natural way of existing, like capitalism has convinced you it so you think this shitty way of life is inevitable

Oil companies make enough money that they can buy legal protection;

because capitalism is a system that allows and encourages this behaviour

it’s a matter of finding politicians (or people of enough influence) that are willing to suck … for some cash.

so continue working within the framework of the system that designed said framework to ensure those in power continue to hold it.

I really wish you bootlickers would realise how pathetic your grovelling sounds to others, you could do with some shame, but if you were capable of it, you wouldn't have reached this point in the first place.

Capitalism literally encourages this greed. It systematizes greed, instead of even attempting to fight it.

Jeezus, the fucking wilful ignorance... Imagine still thinking our political systems are not tied in directly to and co dependant with capitalism.

Getting rid of capitalism means by default getting rid of the governments that uphold it, it's literally there in the comment:

And no, you can't vote capitalism out when both main parties (and most minor ones) serve it (and this is of course relevant pretty much to all current "superpowers", at the very least).

Economic systems and political systems are heavily linked. Who holds the power? And is there a meaningful difference between political power and power through wealth? Or are they 2 sides of the same coin?

If, say, a tiny 1% controls all the wealth in the world, what does that mean for politics? Does democracy hold any power if the 1% can just use their wealth to get their way anyway? What can the 99% do if they have no wealth, and are dependent on the 1% for housing, food, etc? With the police and military legally and violently enforcing that the wealth of the 1% is protected and not just taken by the rest?

While it isn't as drastic as the 99% controlling no wealth, this really isn't far off from reality at all. If the vast majority is dependent on a small powerful minority to survive and have any meaningful quality of life, is there really a meaningful difference to an oligarchy?

*Defends capitalism, blames individuals pursuing self-interest under capitalism, suggests a system that detaches decisions from capitalist self-interest (((totally not socialism)))

How do you not just walk in circles all day?

It's like they teach all you bootlickers the same exact script, and also the sense of entitlement that means you lack the ability to not voice your opinion, no matter how ignorant, and despite the fact that a couple of drones have already regurgitated said script in response to this particulate comment..

Go read my replies to them, or don't you don't seem like the type who likes to be informed (more like a child with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears going "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" ignoring all reality around them to plough on regardless), I've wasted enough breath on you pathetic brownnosers already..