- 0 Posts
- 61 Comments
Without IME they will become very valuable.
You can’t buy those because the patriarchy is preventing them. First you need female investors, managers and designers to make them.
You could have let him have his minute.
Just view moderation history in the three dots menu of the banned comment.
Did congress approve Libya or Serbia?
I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.
Still don’t see your point.
I don’t understand why concentration onto a single capitalist or a small group should destabilize the system.
A hunter gatherer tribe can live by itself. The world run by a capitalist could as well.
from money to productive commodities to produced commodities back into money in a grand expanding circuit, but without such a system you no longer have capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
The single capitalist would still own the means of production.
and prices collapse.
The capitalist could buy everything for a penny. But they don’t have to. They own everything and can pay workers the wages for the workers to survive. But then the capitalist sells the goods for them at the stores at the prices that reflect the effort to produce them if the capitalist wants efficency, or any other price depending on the goals.
This “mega-capitalist” would be overthrown instantly
Why? Give people entertainment and hope and fear and they will just keep working.
A single person can’t actually own the entire economy. They would be ousted instantly.
Make it a hundred.
kind of utopian thinking that powers anarcho-capitalists.
In which way? Wiki couldn’t help me.
We don’t, we rely on organizing. Capitalism’s decay speeds up that process.
Decay lets some people suffer. Coupled with wars and fascism the system can still be stable. There must be something in humans that makes them want to cooperate. Organized suffering people alone will disperse when the suffering is over.
There is no innate human desire for power, just improving our lives.
So socialism is only stable if the people, and especially those in power are happy.
controlled via the administration,
dominated by capitalists will inevitably be limited in factor to how the capitalists wish.
Isn’t that the same concentration of power?
Your argument is that you can pay people more and charge more, but this is self-defeating again. Value isn’t created by ownership
Only in global communism. The charged workers don’t have to be the same as the producing workers.
If it does, the owners can still remain in power and continue the processes without external valorization.
This doesn’t follow from capitalism being contradictory and unsustainable in the long run.
I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.
conjure an economy with no circulation of capital yet where everyone will accept the ruler. This is just anarcho-capitalism with extra steps, in that it would collapse immediately.
There can be circulation. People earn wages and buy commodities. It’s like socialism, just people get less because the capitalist get’s more than everybody else.
Why is the context important if one owns everything?
Because capitalists over company towns essentially had semi-slave labor while selling their commodities abroad
If all resources are available there is no need to sell abroad, or to buy fron there.
has no opportunity for profit or gain, and so would immediately collapse into a socialist revolution.
Why is that inevitable?
capitalism decays the suffering comes with it
Why rely on it instead of building a ‘we’ on its own?
Power is not a mental need nor a physical one, it’s a tool.
Top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is self actualization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs
not for an obsession over power or domination.
Maybe some other reader can chime in? I still believe people seek power, (*if only as a tool for self actualization.)
If you mean between, say, plumbers and engineers, those are the same class.
How should they settle wages?
but with capitalists in charge of the state
UBI in a democracy could be possible.
Further, capitalists do not labor.
That’s a definition thing. They still have to trade and network.
Monopoly prices raise the rate of profit,
Which means the worker could be paid their full value while the profit comes from the buyer.
The following parts are essentially all the same:
-
Capitalism kills itself, it’s a contradictory system.
If it does, the owners can still remain in power and continue the processes without external valorization.
-
no organized class for protecting said single capitalist.
Give some people a nice distinctive hat and there is one.
-
Company towns only “worked” because they existed in the context
Why is the context important if one owns everything?
-
Why would they need profits?
Because that is the driving basis for capitalism and material gain
Do the owners care if their control is not called capitalism anymore? Whatever it is, it doesn’t have to collapse.
class awareness is rising alongside class struggle
Unless it is reset by war. Capitalists know how to keep workers occupied. There will never be so much pressure that the workers organize. To change things, workers must want it without suffering.
-
power is a tool, not a need itself.
Money and Capital is also not a need. Of course, capital is accumulating. But without making good decisions, capital would decay and be overtaken by competitors. Capitalists make good decisions to maintain and increase power. Power is no physical need but a mental one.
There is no tendency for those in power to try to get more.
Why do people want to rise in hierarchies? Not for money alone.
Workers wanting more for their labor is fine
How to settle among different classes of workers?
capitalists that hold all of the leverage
Only without UBI. If workers can walk away, they can ask for the value of their work and capitalists could only get the value of their own work.
capitalists are entirely unnecessary from an economic standpoint
If workers would do the business part.
Capitalism demands competition
No, capitalism is all about preventing competition. It’s liberal markets that need competition. With competition there are no profits above production costs. The profit of capitalists does not only come from underpaying workers but also from overpaying buyers.
circulation of commodities
Commodities would still be bought by workers if there is only one capitalist. Earth would be one big mining town.
Taxation cannot stop the fundamental problems with sustaining an economy where rates of profit lower over time and competition dies.
If somebody owns everything they can command everything. Why would they need profits?
As for collectivization, it just sounds like you’re asking why we aren’t yet organized.
No. The left seems to look at workers and sees lack of organization. But the workers don’t see workers, they see apprentices, skilled workers, bosses, management. They see women and men, they see nations and races. There is no joined identity. There is hardly anybody who wants to be organized as a worker.
People in power don’t tend to “grab more power.”
Why do you believe that?
The basic fact is that capitalists want to pay as little as possible while workers want to be paid as much as possible
Same problem in Socialism among workers unless all are paid equally.
capitalist could make comes from value workers created.
Capitalists bring the company. There would be no capitalists if workers would create their own companies in sufficcient numbers.
capitalist could make comes from value workers created.
Yes
and collapse, it’s unsustainable. …
I think that is lore of hope that is wrong. At last there would be one capitalist, owning everything. What should challenge his power if workers are kept placit and divided?
No amount of progressive taxation can fix this
Why? If there would be enough taxation, UBI jobs would pay their worth and profits would shrink. Problem is that Capitalists would oppose this, and still resource allocation by value and not benefit.
humanity to become the master of capital.
That’s fine with me.
We need to work towards collectivization
I also have no idea what you’re hinting at by saying “there’s no we.”
Where is the collective that does the collectivization?
Obviously the lack of knowledge. I don’t know better. What do you think is wrong?
What do you mean “power accumulating?”
People in power tend to grab more power. Like Capitalism would be acceptable if there was a progressive tax on capital. But those with much capital would collude to undermine it. Likewise socialism could also decay if the people in power would use the power to their advantage. How is that mitigated?
“we,” are you asking why we aren’t organized?
Not exactly. I think that there is no ‘we’ among the working class which prevents the organizing.
How would socialism prevent power from accumulating? Liberals could probably do the same with capital.
There should be a working class we in capitalism but I don’t see it. Why do you think that it exists and that it is not dispersed?
For liberalism, see sibling comment.
we need to overthrow the state
Capitalism is making sure that there is not much of a we.
Liberalism requires individual freedom, including free markets. Capitalism ends with monopolies that destroy free markets.
It is not the same. Liberal societies must want regulated markets.
I would say only a subset of liberals accept raw Capitalism. Liberals need free markets which is a contradiction with Capitalism.
To have less capitalistic structures, people would have to support something with no immedite benefits. Just waiting for Capitalism’s decline is like waiting for Reddit’s decline. It’s always there but never so much that the majority switches. Something is missing that people act on their own.
Workers can prefer to live in a capitalist society if they end up with owning more, or just hope so. So they can be capitalist despite not owning capital. Of course that ignores the distinction between the role as capitalist and the believe.
In general, people don’t value being in control. If they would, people would have moved to Lemmy.
There is still the opportunity that those who care actively push Lemmy beyond its natural growth to make it competitive with Reddit. But at what cost? Then people would choose Lemmy, but not by conviction.
Similarly, people could stop being capitalists by being able to work in a country with a better offer. But that wouldn’t make them anti-capitalist.
It’s like Lemmy and Reddit, people want the promise of more content.
In theory Lemmy could be the more active network. What does it take to make that real?
AUKUS says no.