dj_spanmaster t1_iqw0i1z wrote
Reply to comment by Captain__Spiff in TIL Queen Sophie of the Netherlands’ marriage with King William was so turbulent that when she died, she was buried in her wedding dress because she viewed her life ended on the day she got married. by AsianInvasian93
Ah, so the father was a capitalist. Keep the wealth & power in the family at all costs. It's not uncommon - most liberals fall into this trap, in fact it seems to be the defining line between liberal and true progressive.
fjdkf t1_iqw3hrq wrote
That is not capitalism...
Captain__Spiff t1_iqw1k6d wrote
Aristocrat in the early 19th century
dj_spanmaster t1_iqw7kpj wrote
Actually, this is a great point, one that I needed to read up on. As I've read, the aristocracy can essentially be understood as a wealthy and politically controlling class. Generationally speaking, they tried to keep that wealth and power within a family.
Thing is, I can find little effective difference for how that is currently applied in the the form of capitalism where I live (the USA). Capitalists use their wealth to influence politicians, wielding the political power indirectly instead of directly. They retain their wealth in the family as much as possible, having removed most generational taxes, and primarily marrying within their class (sought citation, found a lot of general expression without firm numbers). That the power is now indirect is decreasing in meaningfulness, as many bills are written by capitalists and passed on verbatim by politicians and lobbying has great sway on them.
gilly_90 t1_iqxn7u8 wrote
Is this a satire account of how people think 'progressives' are? None of this makes sense.
dj_spanmaster t1_iqxoarz wrote
Nope, just a person trying to make sense of the world, with apparently drastic misunderstandings of concepts. From what I can tell the distinction between progressives and neoliberals as they currently exist in the US is along those lines. It's the thorough misapplication to historical contexts that is incorrect. As I mentioned in other comments, history hasn't ever been my strong suit. I'm still deprogramming such "facts" as Noah's flood happening because of reservoirs that were stored under our tectonic plates, the Earth being 6000 years old, and humans walking with dinosaurs within that time. As much work as it is to learn anew, it's double work to unlearn.
radio_allah t1_iqxzcn4 wrote
I love how you felt you needed to specify (USA) as where you live, as though it's not already plenty apparent from the uncalled-for comparison to your personal politics, the arbitrary understanding of 'liberals' and 'capitalism', among other things.
Captain__Spiff t1_iqzj4ci wrote
Sir, this is a Wendy's
sabersquirl t1_iqwya26 wrote
It probably won’t due much good mentioning, but her father was a King prior to Revolutions of 1848. So he was a “liberal progressive” not really in any sense that you would recognize it today, but in the sense that he thought absolute monarchs should show some considerations for their subjects as an enlightened despot. He even backtracked some of his positions after revolutionaries forces him to alter his government in 1848. Calling him a capitalist also doesn’t really make any sense, otherwise all of monarchical history and mercantilism is actually “capitalism” if you define it merely by keeping wealth of the state and family within the monarchs direct control.
dj_spanmaster t1_iqx4gfg wrote
Thank you for taking the time to illustrate. I'm happy to learn I'm missing a lot of context, and taking current and/or localized concepts and misapplying them. History was never my strong suit, and I've got a lot of ground to make up from a significantly lacking schooling.
conquer69 t1_iqy6bkw wrote
That has nothing to do with capitalism. Mercantilism also wanted that.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments