Let me try to rephrase this, so that maybe it makes sense. The point I'm trying to make is that social-darwinism is not an extension of capitalism, they're two different things but with aesthetic overlap.

Capitalism aims to optimize work, by naturally rejecting inefficient ways to do things. The production line wins over the workshop. It's about things and processes, not about people directly.

Social-darwinism is about rejecting people. To refuse people the space to thrive or reproduce. To push them to the edge of society until they die from exposure or suicide or simply that their bloodline ends when they can't support their families over the course of generations. Thus the noble classes dominate by right, and whoever is unsuccessful deserves to die and rot.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I see no point in making a differentiation between mechanism and the methodology to which that mechanism enables the most exploit.

I disagree with your thought that capitalism optimizes work. It either ensures work is done many times over in parallel (competition) or arbitrarily based on the whims of the owner class (olig/monopoly), and that alternative/more efficient means are snuffed out where a more profitable option exists. It's an unstable and inefficient system that relies on civil expenditure (bail outs, infrastructure, etc) to function.

The capitalist system that requires you labor to for food and shelter is exactly the same mechanism that rejects people, pushes them out, exposes them, and props up the wealthy class. Your "Social Darwinism" is a fundamental consequence capitalism, not an unrelated ideology that just happens to exist simultaneously. Capitalism drives people to do [more] evil. Then they rationalize their behavior to protect their ego and power.

[–] mirshafie@europe.pub 1 points 23 hours ago

I'm not making the claim that capitalism optimizes work, it's the claim that liberals make. I think it's important to actually study and understand what other people believe, and as I stated before the idea of capitalism does not allow destruction or monopolization of natural resources, or to block others from using natural resources in a responsible manner (which was the core problem with feudalism).

The point is that billionaires are not liberals, and they don't believe in capitalism.

I'm not arguing whether capitalism is a flawed theory of economics which naturally leads to either fascism, social darwinism, or some third thing. I'm arguing that billionaires actually do believe in social darwinism, which is a different thing than liberalism or capitalism.