Why hasn't the 2008 crash brought forth as much people questioning capitalism as the stock market crash did in 1929?

Why hasn't the 2008 crash brought forth as much people questioning capitalism as the stock market crash did in 1929?

Because capitalist propaganda has got it's self so deep in to society that very few people question wither the capitalist system is at fault.

I mean it has, it's just that the right were far more effective in organising during the earlier period so it was "globalist capitalism" that was the big evil. However the right has shit praxis and very little organisational momentum so are starting to fall apart (UKIP and FN are losing support, AfD is already splitting, the PVV peaked before it could even win seats ect.). Now there are genuine leftist leaders making criticising capital not only acceptable against but mainstream. Pic related (more McDonnell than Corbyn).

*detroys your movment*

We failed to bring consciousness

fucking memer holy shit that was all because of the fucking banks being given unchecked governmental power AKA socialism


There Is No Alternative. The collapse of the USSR deleted anti-capitalism from public discourse. No political actors exist that even bring it up anymore, and on the rare occasion that it does happen you're accused of being an unrealistic utopian that wants to repeat the failure of the USSR and the 100 gorillion. You can openly discuss the failures of capitalism and publically proclaim it to be a bad system, but that still isn't a radical statement because this mentality of there being no possible alternative is so deeply ingrained. People will go, "Capitalism may suck in a lot of ways, but all alternatives have been even worse." Meanwhile, all discontent is redirected towards the social conservatism / progressiveness divide which can't harm capital either way.

You have brain damage

The maximum of wew Ladd

Small brains: Public healthcare is socialism
Medium brains: Keynesianism is socialism
Big brains: The state is socialism
Maximum brains: Banks are socialism


How many layers of ideology is this guy on?

end of history
though history is restarting again - basically this

It definitely did. But for one thing, we recovered fairly quickly compared to the great depression and it wasn't nearly sa bad as the 1929 crash. The U.S. has a ton more safety nets now than we did back then.

And libertarians and conservatives managed to convince a ton of people that the problem was government regulation. They are a lot more organized than the left is.

They recovered. The recovery since 2008 has happened only for the top 5%. The bank bailouts were the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in American, perhaps even world, history.

I meant it in the sense that people generally agree we're not in a recession anymore. But I see what you mean.

Fatalism due to lack of viable alternatives.

From where I stand recession never ended.

Neoclassical economists who think Wall Street creates value and represents the health of the rest of the economy do; everyone else, not so much.

Lots of European banks received TARP money



Government doing stuff isn't socialism. The New Deal wasn't socialism. In fact FDR was a capitalist that actually fucking understood capitalism and was able to help patch it up so it could work for another 30 years.

Because we're still feeling the effects of the cold war.

Simple: the FDIC existed. Nobody lost their deposits.

Americans are the most classcucked people on earth.

Nearly a century of propaganda.

The big one is starting to hit as we speak.
Gold, real estate, crypto, stocks are all bubbled and real estate has already topped off and started to decline. We're at the top of the market and the whales (big investors) have bet that it goes south before Christmas.
Ad automation and a lot of people will be out of jobs. The rule of the wealthy and he free market is already seen as dumb by the Western world. There will be handouts a plenty.

Thinking in terms of these pure abstractions is not useful (although leftists do the same). It was the wealthy (and, more so, large corporations) using their money to influence the state via democracy to give them whatever they wanted. Whether this is labelled "capitalism" or "socialism" is unimportant next to understand what occured.

I don't think universal gibsmedat and a reordering of society towards humanity/the group rather than the individual and the GDP is unlikely. But workers direct control of the means of production is probably a meme.
Going by the example of Rome, and the way public discourse and the economy are heading, we can probably expect leaders to give people more stuff and the power of money in politics to be severely checked.

Why? The bourgeoisie control the entire economy and government, why should they give that up?

Trump was the first politician (afaik) to run against the bourgeoisie, the corporations and still win. He also ran on a platform of change, which is the same thing as what Obama and Sanders ran on. With Trump it was in the form of economic protectionist populism and attacking the establishment in and of itself, but the specifics are not that important. What is important is the growing power of the state, its reach across most of the world economy, and its takeover at the highest level by candidates not chosen by the super rich, placed there by a population desirous of change.
Trump being a fat capitalist is less important than the fact that he won despite the overwhelming majority of fat capitalists not wanting him to. His movement has shredded the credibility of media, academia and the political class and opened a space for different ideas. At the same time, certain members of the rich eg Elon musk are talking UBI, and in most of the West
a de facto version of it exists anyway. It will probably be formalised, the same way it was during the Roman Empire after the plebs reed caesar and his son again into office, against the latifundia owning elite and the richest man in Roman history, Crassus.