>>17111189>This makes no sense. Capitalism is in essence the principles that allow the accumulation of wealth. You can't be poor without capitalism.
Capitalism is the principle that allows the accumulation of capital. Wealth is just a measurement of the perceived monetary value of someone or something. And you can absolutely be poor without capitalism lol. Were those starving peasants in the middle ages secretly kings?>No, but as an ideology, anarcho primitivism is way better for humanity than neoliberalism.
I don't see how subsistence living and a terrible standard of living is better but ok. And liberals aren't neoliberals. >Why does wealth need to exist in the first place? All it does it state who receives access to different goods based on whoever is willing to go the furthest to accumulate it.
Again wealth is just a measurement. It doesn't exclude people anymore than time does. It exists because humans like to assign information to things. And how the worth of someone is information.>Because as long as there's is wealth, there will be an incentive to gain more of it. the means of production should belong to everybody who uses it. there's nothing wrong
So why is it a problem people want to become more wealthy? >but literally when does that ever work. the poor get poorer and the rich get richer under neoliberal capitalism.
Literally in the graph I showed you. And the current welfare states of Europe also prove you wrong. >Progessive isn't a fiscal position. Hardcore capitalists can be progressives. American liberals will virtue signal and fight for minorities insofar as it makes them money. It's soulless. I suggest you look into woke capitalism. Liberals are only progressive when it suits their agenda.
I suggest you look into the definition of an American liberal. It isn't about virtue signaling.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_a_Liberal
You really don't know what a liberal is, so why do you have such a strong opinion on them?