[SnazzyJeff]

> Consensus would exist due to the power of the state regardless of the economic system.

What does this mean? Genuinely confused what you think a state is in the modern age if not the infrastructure necessary to support a market.

[anonymouskimmer]

For some reason this comment of yours was dead.

Power drives consensus. Capitalism is just a means to allocate this power within a functioning state. But even in a non-Capitalist state consensus still exists due to allocated power.

Capitalism has uses other than consensus as well.

Ah. I think I was talking past you by hyper focusing on just the "capitalist" and "consensus" parts of what you wrote. I was taking it to mean that there was a special connection between capitalism and consensus, and not just that capitalism is one means by which consensus is created.

[SnazzyJeff]

> Power drives consensus.

Power is able to manipulate consensus, but ultimately it exists despite consensus. Its existence is relative by definition.

> Capitalism has uses other than consensus as well.

False

> Ah. I think I was talking past you by hyper focusing on just the "capitalist" and "consensus" parts of what you wrote. I was taking it to mean that there was a special connection between capitalism and consensus, and not just that capitalism is one means by which consensus is created

There are of course other means of consensus. For whatever reason these means are not available to us now, allegedly.