- cross-posted to:
- usauthoritarianism@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- usauthoritarianism@lemmy.world
This is actually an older news story, and it does appear as though she recovered from this before her death.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14389544
True. Go move then. Or any other non capitalist country.
No? Maybe those are worse than capitalism and we should try to fix it instead of calling everyone terrorists? Ok then.
nah, corporations are literally evil, as in no morals evil
Fire is also no morals evil. Corporations are tools. Dangerous but powerful tools. You use them poorly and you end up with corporations murdering union leaders and poisoning communities. You don’t use them at all and you end up with breadlines and authoritarianism.
nah, fire is just the propagation of exothermic reactions.
Corporations require intent, they are designed to literally strip any moral consideration from their actions.
PS: about that breadlines and authoritarianism, the US has had plenty of breadlines, and still does to this day, also authoritarians love corporations, after all corporations are inherently authoritarian.
Corporations don’t do moral consideration by their nature, just like fire. You can say it was “by design” for corporations and coincidence for fire, but that is a distinction without difference. Irrelevant for the argument.
And funnily enough, having many authoritarians in a system surprisingly results in much less authoritarian system than having just one. That is why the 3 branches of government are split and it is why I don’t know of any true democracy that is not capitalistic. The authoritarians keep each other in check.
you do realize that corporations aren’t some law of nature? corporations are a social construct in the most literal meaning of the phrase.
secondly, you must think the HRE must have been some free paradise by your understanding, also I don’t know of any fascist system that that wasn’t capitalist, but I do know plenty of pre-capitalist democratic societies
Again, distinction without a difference.
And you may want a refresher on your ancient democracies ;) Which one did not have a separate class of landowners (owning the only relevant means of production back then)? Also, just comparing agrarian societies to modern economic systems is childish. I am much better of living under “tyrannical capitalists” today than in any of those societies.
I would wager to argue that one being, entirely a concept only existing in human thinking. The other being an exothermic reaction following the laws of nature is quite a distinction here.
unless you are going to concede that we could just trust bust fire, can i sue fire for the damages on my house? what exactly is the fiscal return on the primary product of fire?
as for:
You confuse the achievements of modernism with capitalism, it wasn’t capitalism the stopped famines in most of the world, it was a crazed Jewish-German nationalist with the backing of a local monarch
also, most of the Greek democracies had all not enslaved male citizens enfranchised, with the woman’s vote in most the world being a consequence of socialist campaigning
What are you even talking about?
You confuse using a hands crank with operating a nuclear powerplant. It is not about what created the modern industrial society. It is about whether an elected committee would be able to run it and average people be able to oversee it. Which they wouldn’t. People that dedicate their entire lives to studying management and economics are barely able to.
Breadlines happened in the Great Depression. They happened because of Capitalism and Corporations.
Do you believe history is a real thing that impacts where countries are development-wise, or do you believe colonialism, imperialism, and destructive geopolitical policies are fake and do not exist?
Do you think that if Cuba turned Capitalist it would suddenly become a fully developed country like in Western Europe or America overnight? Why?
Then take a look at China as an example. Its explosive growth started when it embraced capitalism (authoritarian flavor, but capitalism). Before that it more or less stagnated. Capitalism is obviously not the only requirement but it is a necessary one.
China grew steadily under Mao, but was not an industrialized economy. Under Deng, Capitalistic market reforms took place and foreign Capital was brought in to speed up development, but as you’ve said, the State still maintains dominance over the economy.
Capitalism is not necessary for development. Humanity developed for thousands of years pre-Capitalism, which itself is only a few hundred years old. You do not require individual mini-dictators competing for higher and higher profits in order to develop, industry can be run by the collective.
It just can’t be at scale. Would be lovely if it could.
People who don’t own something have no incentive to improve it. A factory run by a collective will always prioritize wages over modernizing equipment etc.
People will not invest into new ventures if they don’t get profits, prioritizing luxuries/lifestyle instead.
Why can’t it be at scale?
People who share ownership can democratically decide how to invest in industry, and elect a representative if they so choose. Planning is careful and democratic, and the need to invest in industry is something that is easy to understand with a well-funded education system.
On top of that, you can just-as-nonsensically claim that Capitalists will always prioritize their own pockets over modernizing equipment, which is just as false.
People will invest in productivity so that they can work less, prioritizing their material conditions.
Share ownership of what? If you mean just the factory they work in or a small group, then you get most of the same issues you denounce in capitalism. Some factories will inevitably become rich and prosperous, some will go bankrupt. There will still be wealth inequality. You will also get various new issues such us how do you found new factories and industries without re-inventing capitalism or at least having the same consolidation issues.
If you are talking about all the capital in the nation/world, then the gains you can obtain from improving your own productivity is insignificant, evaporating the motivation. It is much easier to slack off and leach of others.
Share ownership of the Means of Production collectively at scale.
Additionally, even if we follow your strawman of there being wealth inequality from different worker cooperatives, these are not “the same issues as Capitalism.” You eliminate exploitation with worker cooperatives, there isn’t a Capitalist stealing surplus labor value.
You create new industries and new factories via collectively directed investment. You can do this through the government, or workers councils.
No, it is not much easier to slack off systemically.
You can only argue off of vibes, I suppose.
Ok, I am a member of whatever group votes on investment in a new industry. If I approve the investment, the money can’t be used for my and my collectives wages. So what do I gain to offset the loss of wages? What makes me want to do the investment? Surely I can’t get a share of the profits, since those will belong to the workers in the new industry. I would be exploiting their work like a capitalist.