To anyone who supports capitalism or otherwise opposes socialism:
Do you support the idea that one man can accumulate enough wealth to own all land of this Earth, making everyone born in his empire under his rule as long as he can kill to defend it? What prevents capitalism from accomplishing this in law? What law exists that limits the borders of nations?
Why, then, must we endure a system where a single man owning the Earth and enslave it is a feature, not a bug?
https://dice.camp/@sean/114698774200264413
I just wanna know what people think. Why must this be maintained? Why is any opposition to capping wealth just the end of the world when it probably would save it, just logically thinking it through?
You must log in or # to comment.
If we hate capitalism and want socialism, we need to recognise that most people do not really know what those words mean, or are even intimidated by them. We need to use very plain language - fewer isms - if we want to bring people with us. Otherwise we are just preaching to the choir.
Tim Walz’s attempt to rebrand social democratic policies as neighborliness might be a good start.
No doubt, but I’m talking to people who care about the term capitalism so much that they’ll be considered “pro capitalism.” That’s fine if you’re not a capitalist, but I’m not trying to argue that people who are already not pro capitalism should be against it, I’m trying to argue that people who are pro capitalism should be against it.
Fair.
Generally agree on not assuming a high level understanding but
fewer isms
Okay but this specific phrasing makes me want to violence you. Would you be amenable to this?
Knock yourself (or me!) out :) But there is an irony in not liking the word “isms” in an argument against using them in their full / correct form.
Organisms.
There’s sort of an unstated rule that capitalism needs black markets / organized crime to work, so, criminals would stop this
If only one man owns everything, then expropriation would be really fast in theory
Not if he’s surrounded by dead bodies, but capitalism can’t prevent that either.
I look forward to seeing an evolution of thought, theory and practice in the next few years.
I think there are effective ways to undo this problem that are not born yet
It’s an interesting and hard problem. Because most billionaires don’t own billions in cash - they own companies that are worth billions. These companies also don’t have billions of assets - they are valued at billions by investors.
The problem is that musks and bezoses of the world didn’t start with billions - they started with millions and lucked out. So to prevent this from happening you need some system that can fairly catch a moment where a business becomes too big and do something about it.
You can’t really cut the majority owner out, because well they own the company - you can’t just take away what they own. But you can’t really pay them some ceiling cost either - you’ll just end up making someone else a billionaire.
anyone who hates socialism must hate driving their truck on all of those free roads.
I honestly don’t understand this comment. Is the “free roads” part sarcasm? Roads cost money to build and maintain, so, what are you trying to say here?
the roads in america are socialized, even for those that dont drive or own a car (yet the infrastructure on/near the roads for non-drivers is lacking at best). taxes that arent related to cars pay for ~75% of the taxes that build and maintain roads (the other 25% is from mostly car-specific taxes).
This is the first anti-capitalism post on Lemmy I can agree with. Not because I think capitalism is bad (but what we see now actually is bad and ugly, no question there), but because it poses a valid question: if you are against whatever looks like socialism, go on and explain how current fuckery should be the norm. Thank you for posting this
People using violence to gather resources and power to themselves has always been the state of humanity. Capitalism is just a present day version of that.
Power is never relinquished willingly. Only through the threat of violence, or by actual violence.
has always
No.
(implied) human nature
No and fuck you
power is never relinquished willingly
Has been, could be, but won’t be here. No.
Let’s put it this way:
If someone held a gun to your head and told you to shut the fuck up, you would shut the fuck up.
you didn’t ask about my gun pointed at his head as well? why must only he have the gun?
You could be the “someone” being referred to. In the case you are not, nothing I said excludes you from participating.
if we both pointed guns at each others head, he would be pointing a gun at my head like you stated, but I’d also be pointing a gun at his. Why would either of us shut up in this equally threatening situation where neither are obviously in control? This is literally MAD theory btw. You are arguing countries with nukes would rather nuke each other than talk it out if you think two humans would rather kill each other over whatever made up scenario you invented to make your point on violence than try to resolve it without dying. I’m sorry, but people don’t just kill because they’re hungry. They’ll beg first. They’ll steal. Murder is often a last resort man, and any case that you may dream of, I’m sorry but capitalism isn’t a better solution to it any more than an honest attempt at democratic socialism.
This has happened to me before. I did not shut the fuck up.
I dunno if i would today. Small calibur? Probably. Large calibur? No clue.
How does that apply, though?
Sure, tough guy, because caliber matters.
There have always been people who are willing to use violence (or the real theat of violence) to collect resources and power. Always. Many of those people throughout history have wielded huge amounts of power over large numbers of people, because most people reject violence. And once violent people have extended their power enough, they don’t have to do the violence anymore, because the threat is so deeply ingrained.
So, if someone held a gun to your head and told you to shut the fuck up, you would shut the fuck up, either because you ceded control to the violent person, or because you were dead. Any other result means that it was an empty threat. Violence, or the real threat of violence works. It always works, and the only way to defeat it is greater violence turned on that aggressor.
This is why the people “in charge” are usually horrible, awful, exploitative people. Because being horrible, awful, and exploitative is necessary to concentrate power. The United States is a propsperous nation because Europeans showed up and stole most of a continent from the dwindling number of people who already lived there, after having been mostly killed off by disease, much of the rest being finished off by - wait for it - state-sponsored violence.
Right or wrong, the people who are willing to use violence as a means to their ends succeed.
