That's an interesting analogy.

This is not true. Marxism deals with much more metaphysical questions than liberalism does. The issue is not just that some people are poor and others are rich and that that's unfair. That has been true since time immemorial, but Marx's object of inquiry was specifically the economic system brought into being by the industrial revolution and other material changes. That system by its nature produces specific classes of people (proletariats and bourgeoisie), and Marxism is really about an analysis of those classes and the ethical questions brought about by their interaction.

So for example a big issue Marx is concerned with that is totally absent from liberalism is this concept of 'alienation'[1], whereby a worker becomes wholly estranged, in an artificial way, from the product that he creates; and whereby labour, normally a self-realizing and delightful undertaking, becomes instead commoditized as merely a means to existence.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation

You're missing the point. The anti-competitive behaviour isn't harmful against other search engines - it's against companies in the other domains where Google can leverage its nigh total search engine dominance to push its other products, e.g. Google Flights and Google Shopping. How is a flight booking service supposed to fairly compete with Google Flights when Google owns the top of the funnel where users go to search for these services? It's exactly the same thing that Microsoft did with Internet Explorer in the 90s: leverage their control of the platform (in that case, an OS) to exclude competitors for their other products (web browsers).

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641753

Points: 1

# Comments: 0