Yep, capitalism is at direct odds with competetive markets almost by definition.
“free” is the non-specific term tht they use rhetorically. “Competition” is the market feature that might theoretically benefit consumers in some circumstances - and they don’t often include that word in their rhetoric.
It’s always been about acquisition of market power, this is sort of opposite of a free market.
If any threat of consumer rights / anti-trust / labour rights or balancing of market power arises, their incentive is to acquire political power and influence to defend their power.
It was the same story in western Europe before industry and “capitalism”, just the landed class monopolising land vs peasantry (and/or enslaved/indentured labour). Landowners monopolised all the votes and even when suffrage expanded it was usually top down. Until maybe 1789 when something else happened to the top.
Unfortunately I think many of the major progressive changes of the past (that benefit people in general rather than the elites - again in “the West”) have mostly followed catastrophic events or political upheaval, or martyrdom.
Peasants revolts, black death, aftermath/stress of major wars, civil war, workers uprisings, race riots, 1929, ww2.
I guess the 1929 and all the FDR stuff and strengthened social policies in western Europe was all widely democratically backed (honourable mention to the banks’ major incompetence , to hitler for being such a massive c*nt and a decent 50-or-so years of European imperial decline) .
So maybe there’s some hope for the democratic or the MLK/Gandhi type approach - not that it worked out too well for those two individuals.
Yep, capitalism is at direct odds with competetive markets almost by definition.
“free” is the non-specific term tht they use rhetorically. “Competition” is the market feature that might theoretically benefit consumers in some circumstances - and they don’t often include that word in their rhetoric.
It’s always been about acquisition of market power, this is sort of opposite of a free market.
If any threat of consumer rights / anti-trust / labour rights or balancing of market power arises, their incentive is to acquire political power and influence to defend their power.
It was the same story in western Europe before industry and “capitalism”, just the landed class monopolising land vs peasantry (and/or enslaved/indentured labour). Landowners monopolised all the votes and even when suffrage expanded it was usually top down. Until maybe 1789 when something else happened to the top.
Unfortunately I think many of the major progressive changes of the past (that benefit people in general rather than the elites - again in “the West”) have mostly followed catastrophic events or political upheaval, or martyrdom.
Peasants revolts, black death, aftermath/stress of major wars, civil war, workers uprisings, race riots, 1929, ww2.
I guess the 1929 and all the FDR stuff and strengthened social policies in western Europe was all widely democratically backed (honourable mention to the banks’ major incompetence , to hitler for being such a massive c*nt and a decent 50-or-so years of European imperial decline) .
So maybe there’s some hope for the democratic or the MLK/Gandhi type approach - not that it worked out too well for those two individuals.