Asklemmy

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

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.

because they prefer to dream of themselves as billionaires in potentia. it's hard to admit you've been duped, especially when society gives you so many targets to punch down on.

or, as futurama put it, link

Well it's similar to what Churchill said about democracy... it's a bad system but it's better than all the others.

If you can put ideology aside and think in terms of economics, in many industries capitalism offers an efficient way of determining the an optimal price and quantity to produce considering the costs and value something brings. And it's something that allows for industries to function without an excessive amount of centralized planning which will often get things wrong.

But it's like a machine in a many ways. And like any machine it requires maintenance. Things like trust-busting, progessive taxation, regulations, and occasional stimulus are necessary to keep it running smoothly.

But once you bring ideology into it, it all becomes a shitshow. Some will argue capitalism is a perfect machine and any kind of maintenance on the machine will ruin it's perfection. Others take any kind of maintenance on the machine as a sign the machine will inevitably fail and needs to be replaced entirely. But then we go back to the beginning where other systems have been tried and they're worse. Charlatans, grifters, ideologues abound pushing people in every direct except for simply taking reasonable measures to keep the machine running smoothly. There's an almost religious devotion towards arguing the either the machine is perfect or the machine is doomed to failure and not only should be replaced they should accelerate the failure so it can be replaced sooner.

Zealots from all sides demonize the mechanics that are simply keeping things running. A lot of emotional nonsense about this thing. But to an economist, it's just a machine with both strengths and weaknesses. The functioning of the machine is well understood, and the other machines that have been tried didn't really work.

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.

Because propaganda is effective.

temporarily embarrassed billionaires

Richard Nixon's head : I promise to cut taxes for the rich and use the poor as a cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel!

[audience applauds]

Philip J. Fry : That'll show those poor!

Turanga Leela : You're not rich!

Philip J. Fry : But someday I might be rich, and people like me better watch their step

Many don't even do it intentionally, they just don't grasp concepts like Historical and Dialectical Materialism, which requires reading lengthy books to fully grasp. They may be anti-Capitalist at heart, but without a solid understanding of theory they play into bourgeois hands.

There's also the fact that the ideas held by society are a reflection of the Mode of Production.

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.

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.

Unfortunately many of us have been taught that being a good person and a good citizen equals being productive and accumulating resources. Things that are quantifiable and external to the actual person and their relationships.

Being productive and accumulating some resources can be good activities to spend time on, but they are practical necessities and not defining characteristics of existence.

Propaganda

1. Because it's in their personal interests to perpetuate capitalism
2. Because liberal ideology is hegemonic and it is what most people have been raised to believe
3. Plenty of other reasons why people hold the political beliefs they hold, surely it's obvious that there are many ways that someone can arrive at a belief system

Because the average person doesn't have any real time to think deeply about politics. They believe whatever big media tells them. Some also can't understand how evil someone people can get.

"Surely the basic logic of how things work must be very consistent in order to have such a large and prosperous country like the USA. I don't understand it. Probably because I'm missing something not because it's fundamentally flawed"

Our retirement is tied to it.

Liberalism, its propaganda, and its consequences. Also a severe lack of class consciousness and knowledge of political theory.

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.

We’re raised by parents that must be obeyed for our own safety. Some people eventually learn to accept their parents are imperfect people and not gods. Many people do not. They look to kings and gods to protect and provide for them.

Those that have power negotiate with kings and gods. People without power attempt to use the only techniques they know to negotiate with their kings and gods: begging and/or pledging loyalty and service in exchange for scraps.

Of course this is but one of many reasons many people worship power.

It's not because they think they can be billionaires, it's because they've been taught (and in a minority of cases this is true) that they are better off going after the crumbs that billionaires leave them than trying some other system.