252
we must maintain the status quo (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (12 children)

I think that idea is that a healthy, well-balanced capitalism (with working competition and anti-trust law) would make this imposible. It's a good argument agains cronyism and other broken form of psudo-capitalims... which most reasonable poeople would agree are bad regardless on theier political aligments. Capitalims shoudn't have monopolies. Period.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Right? Yeah we should still only be allowed to make or do stuff as the byproduct of a scam, we just shouldn't go over board with it.

    I agree. The version of the philosophy of value where ownership is valued and labor is not, is just :violated by things like 'owning too much' and 'exploiting labor' and 'doing whatever you like with all the shit you own'.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Capitalims shoudn't have monopolies. Period.

    But the ability to accrue capital inherently enables one to buy out competitors. You need a massive regulatory apparatus to prevent this, and nearly everyone who self-identifies as a capitalist opposes this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    No if you have anti-trust law. In Europe state stopping someone from becoming to big is very normal. Do you remember that Microsoft was at risk of being forcebly splited into multiple companies over Internet Explorer being preinstaled? US just foritted those very needed state rights. There are plenty of capitalist that agree that regulations are needed. Some probleme are to big, and only state can fix them. No sain person is trying to fix global warning by deregulations. That's preaty much a prevailing opinion everywhere... outside US. But what's in US it's not capitalism. It's not even a rule of law at the moment it would seem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    What law prevents a nation from expanding its borders to include the entire earth as long as "might is right" remains unchecked in this world?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    This part I don't get even as argument. What law would prevent one under socialism?

    i understand the logic of "under capitalism -in theory - one could simply by every pice of land". I don't necessarily agree, but I understand. I don't see how it makes a difference if the invader is a socialist or capitalist country.

    might is right == capitalism seams reductive

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Any economic system that has no safeguard to the "can someone own the Earth in your system?" problem is not a valid one in my opinion.

    Socialism attempts to solve the problem by stating "the Earth isn't ownable under socialism, and anyone who tries to own a piece of it is met with resistance. Anyone who tries to own a piece of land by violent means is resisted by violent means". This is the nature of socialism and its theory on ownership. Is this not something that would benefit the Earth compared to the existing capitalist system that is only limited by democracy, which has historically used, and is currently using, systemic state-sponsored violence and regime change to achieve its goals?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    hmm, it can't eo owned indyvidualy. Can it be owned collectively? Can socialist country have borders? If it can, than I dont see what rules (not present in the capitalist country) would hard-stop it from expending those borders. If we use existing system from history as comparison, it's not all kisses and rosesses here as well.

    If it can't have borders than we are talking the level of abstraction that I don't know how to discuss productively in the context of the twitt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Do you think democratic socialism fundamentally, foundationally, has a stance on what is and isnt property, and who can or cannot own it, and what is or is not ownership of property, and what level of violence is or is not tolerable in defense of property? If socialism does have quantifiable stances on these things, is it not perfectly reasonable to suggest socialism makes an attempt to address the issue of the original post?

    Democratic Capitalism says anyone can own property, anything and anyone can be property (slavery is state sponsored and is allowed within democratic capitalism), and it allows murder in defense of any property. Can a cop kill someone looting a grocery store? Do you believe such a thing be allowed fundamentally allowed in a democratic socialist economic system? Which system do you think would logically lead to a more peaceful planet—the status quo or democratic socialism?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I think it's a false dyhotomy. I think that "system" is a structured atrmpt to solve social problems - some of those are more efficiently solved by individuals and competotions, some are more efficiently solved by collective effort and collaboration. The dissaggreement between people about which system is better is mostly a categorization of those problem - if you believe almost non are in the first category. But it is a spectrum. Society with overwelmingly capitalist economy, strong social werfare and hard rules that prevents police from killing thieves over food, are not impossible. Those describe most European countries. I feel like people are taking what's broken in US and and point to it saying "this is capitalism". I don't believe it is. I think it's mostly lawlessness and the lack of rule of law. I think capitatalism at it best make most aggressive and predotory tactic both ilegal and inefficient. We just don't see a lot of capitalism at it's best recently.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    "the status quo (democratic capitalism) must be maintained" got it!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I belive that what can be evolved needs to evolved and what can't evolve needs to revolve. I suspect we disagree on which is which. But I thing we would find some common grounds as well. I welcome the disruption. But as someone who was born in one of those "people's republic" I would prefer my revolution with less gulags.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •