this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
541 points (98.2% liked)
Memes
53548 readers
1199 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
You're confusing capitalists, ie capital owners, with liberals, those who are pro-capitalism. As for Lemmy, its growth is tied to recognition and Reddit's decay, the established community on Reddit is itself the draw.
what's the cutoff between capital owners and regular rich assholes, it a certain $ amount or is just as soon as your the one paying people?
There are blurred lines when it comes to the edges of class, but capitalists as a class are those that essentially make their profits by purchasing labor and raw materials, and selling the products of that labor and raw material in a market.
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.
What makes you talk so confidently about things you clearly don't know the first thing about?
Obviously the lack of knowledge. I don't know better. What do you think is wrong?
Liberalism is the ideological aspect of capitalism. "Raw capitalism" doesn'r really mean anything.
To move onto socialism, we need to overthrow the state, replace it with a socialist one, and establish public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Countries like China, Vietnam, and Cuba have already done this, as did the former USSR.
For liberalism, see sibling comment.
Capitalism is making sure that there is not much of a we.
Capitalism with monopoly is still capitalism, Liberalism being a failed ideology does not mean it ceases to be Liberalism as it fails. There's absolutely a we within capitalism, the working classes are a we.
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?
What do you mean "power accumulating?" This sounds like you're talking about magic or something. Capitalists use capital for their plunder, I don't see what you mean by linking that to socialism. As for the working class "we," are you asking why we aren't organized? That takes time and effort.
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?
Not exactly. I think that there is no 'we' among the working class which prevents the organizing.
People in power don't tend to "grab more power." "Power" is not a metaphysical power that corrupts people, what actually happens is that systems like capitalism reward those that get profit by any means necessary.
Capitalism would not be acceptable even with a progressive tax. The basic fact is that capitalists want to pay as little as possible while workers want to be paid as much as possible, and that all profit a capitalist could make comes from value workers created.
Not only this, but capitalism trends towards imperialism and collapse, it's unsustainable. Over time, there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall due to a rise in the ratio of capital to labor as representing the value of a commodity. This is combatted by expansion to raise absolute profits, and by monopoly to raise rates of profit. What this creates is a systemic push towards underdeveloping the global sourh, placing compradors in power, and super-exploiting foreign workers for super profits.
The US Empire is at the helm, but western Europe and strategic allies also benefit and participate in this system. No amount of progressive taxation can fix this, what we need is for humanity to become the master of capital. We need to work towards collectivization of all production and distribution, and orient this towards satisfying the needs of everyone.
I also have no idea what you're hinting at by saying "there's no we."
Why do you believe that?
Same problem in Socialism among workers unless all are paid equally.
Capitalists bring the company. There would be no capitalists if workers would create their own companies in sufficcient numbers.
Yes
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?
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.
That's fine with me.
Where is the collective that does the collectivization?
Power isn't a supernatural corrupting force, power is a tool, not a need itself. There is no tendency for those in power to try to get more.
Socialism works to eradicate class distinctions. Workers wanting more for their labor is fine, but in capitalism it's the capitalists that hold all of the leverage and thus pay workers as little as possible. Capitalists are parasites.
Capitalists do not "bring the company," they own the paper that legally entails them to it. The workers are the ones that run the company, capitalists are entirely unnecessary from an economic standpoint.
If there was a single capitalist owning everything, then there wouldn't be. Capitalism demands competition and circulation of commodities, capitalists depend on that for profit. If it all dies, then capitalism would cease to function and break down, and the ensuing fallout would result in either socialism or barbarism.
As I alluded to above, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall in a finite world results in gradual breakdown of capitalism. Imperialism causes it to stick around for longer, but also prompts revolution in the global south. Taxation cannot stop the fundamental problems with sustaining an economy where rates of profit lower over time and competition dies.
As for collectivization, it just sounds like you're asking why we aren't yet organized. Some countries already have organized and successfully established socialism, the rest of us still need to organize.
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.
Why do people want to rise in hierarchies? Not for money alone.
How to settle among different classes of workers?
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.
If workers would do the business part.
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.
Commodities would still be bought by workers if there is only one capitalist. Earth would be one big mining town.
If somebody owns everything they can command everything. Why would they need profits?
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.
Power is not a mental need nor a physical one, it's a tool. Capitalism selects for those that can best get the most profits, ergo power is useful in achieving those ends. It isn't about making "good" decisions, but profitable ones.
This is a cop-out answer. People don't have a natural desire to "rise in hierarchies." If that's the best way to improve your material conditions then people will desire to rise, not for an obsession over power or domination.
If you mean between the peasantry and proletariat, the answer is to industrialize agriculture and fold everyone into the proletariat gradually (alongside collectivizing production and distribution to erase class). If you mean between, say, plumbers and engineers, those are the same class.
Utter fantasy. UBI is just a form of social welfare, but with capitalists in charge of the state UBI will only exist in a manner that benefits capitalists. The state isn't above class struggle, but within it. Further, capitalists do not labor. The day to day management of companies is done by workers, capitalists contribute nothing but the fact that they legally own the tools.
Profit comes from underpaying workers. Profit is made by selling commodities for their value, which is made up of raw materials, tool usage, etc called "constant capital," and for wages, called "variable capital." Constant capital is crystallized prior labor, the profit comes from paying a worker for only a small portion of their labor time, regulated around cost of reproduction of labor (ie, minimum customary living standards). Monopoly prices raise the rate of profit, which is why companies try to seek monopoly, but they also need competition in order to keep circulation of commodities flowing for their own valorization of invested capital.
Capitalism kills itself, it's a contradictory system.
Think of it this way: If a single capitalist owned everything, then cost of goods collapses. There is no circulation anymore, only planned production and distribution, and absolutely no organized class for protecting said single capitalist. Capitalism would cease to function. Company towns only "worked" because they existed in the context of a grander market that the capitalists could get all that they wanted from.
Because that is the driving basis for capitalism and material gain under it. That's why I'm saying that this hypothetical is impossible and would collapse immediately, just like anarcho-capitalism. It fundamentally misunderstands how capitalism works.
This is a very western viewpoint, and one that is increasingly incorrect. As capitalism decays, class awareness is rising alongside class struggle.
Top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs is self actualization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
Maybe some other reader can chime in? I still believe people seek power, (*if only as a tool for self actualization.)
How should they settle wages?
UBI in a democracy could be possible.
That's a definition thing. They still have to trade and network.
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:
If it does, the owners can still remain in power and continue the processes without external valorization.
Give some people a nice distinctive hat and there is one.
Why is the context important if one owns everything?
Do the owners care if their control is not called capitalism anymore? Whatever it is, it doesn't have to collapse.
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.
Per wikipedia the link you gave: Although widely used and researched, the hierarchy of needs has been criticized for its lack of conclusive supporting evidence and its validity remains contested. There is no innate human desire for power, just improving our lives. Power doesn't foster a thirst for power.
In a socialist economy, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Wages are more strongly controlled via the administration, but until we get to a point where we can distribute according to need, we will distribute according to work, including variance for skill, danger, and intensity. See how socialist countries already settle wages.
Democracy and capitalism are incompatible. Any social reforms gained by the working classes in the context of an economy dominated by capitalists will inevitably be limited in factor to how the capitalists wish. Democracy is only compatible with socialism and communism, for the most part.
They don't even need to do that, they pay people to do this. No value is created via ownership.
Workers are the buyers, except for luxury goods which are targeting capitalists, as well as industrial equipment, etc. Workers cannot be paid the full value of their labor and still have the capitalists profit. Your argument is that you can pay people more and charge more, but this is self-defeating again. Value isn't created by ownership, nor by charging monopoly prices.
This doesn't follow from capitalism being contradictory and unsustainable in the long run.
Administration is not a distinct class, you're trying to 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.
Because capitalists over company towns essentially had semi-slave labor while selling their commodities abroad, to better paid workers and other capitalists, as well as purchasing goods from outside of the company town. Company towns weren't selling purely to their own workers.
It has to collapse if it is to remain capitalism, because the idea of a system where a single mega-capitalist owns everything in a closed system is one that has no opportunity for profit or gain, and so would immediately collapse into a socialist revolution.
Workers have already successfully established socialism for billions of people, and as capitalism decays the suffering comes with it. Imperialism is collapsing and the rate of profit is falling.
So socialism is only stable if the people, and especially those in power are happy.
Isn't that the same concentration of power?
Only in global communism. The charged workers don't have to be the same as the producing workers.
I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.
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.
If all resources are available there is no need to sell abroad, or to buy fron there.
Why is that inevitable?
Why rely on it instead of building a 'we' on its own?
That's true of any society, for the most part. Socialist countries do end up doing this much better than peer countries though. Also, in socialism, the working class is in power. Administrative positions exist, but they aren't unaccountable or anything.
Not at all. Collectivization of production and distribution into one democratically run system does naturally follow from the groundwork paved by late stage capitalism, yes, but this collectivization also brings with it democratization of power.
I don't see how this relates to communism, moreover the working class as a whole is the class that produces and consumes. The company towns only worked somewhat because the commodities they produced were sold outside, making everything a company town wouldn't work.
Still don't see your point.
Not at all. Buying goods with money earned isn't the same as circulation of capital. Capital transmogrifies 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, and prices collapse. This "mega-capitalist" would be overthrown instantly and socialism or barbarism would take its place.
There is for profit. You're trying to create a weird utopian mega-capitalism that would, the instant it existed, collapse into socialism or barbarism.
A single person can't actually own the entire economy. They would be ousted instantly. This is the same kind of utopian thinking that powers anarcho-capitalists.
We don't, we rely on organizing. Capitalism's decay speeds up that process.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
The single capitalist would still own the means of production.
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.
Why? Give people entertainment and hope and fear and they will just keep working.
Make it a hundred.
In which way? Wiki couldn't help me.
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.
You're confusing the ability for non-capitalist systems to function without circulation of commodities as their basis with the ability for capitalism to do so. Capitalism functions by this, it's how capital is valorized.
A "capitalist" system where you have a single person that owns everything is both structurally impossible (similar to anarcho-capitalism) and also not capitalism. You've gone beyond the relations of bourgeois and proletarians into a system owned by a single autocrat, which would immediately cease. Capital isn't circulating, and it isn't being valorized, and this one person could not possibly get everyone to go along with treating them as god-emperor.
These kinds of hypotheticals will never come to pass, and thus it's pointless to discuss beyond entertainment value.
Market efficiency doesn't exist here, there isn't a market for labor. It's one capitalist. Prices don't come from thin-air, and the capitalist has no use for money because they own literally everything. Systems of accounting would not work here.
A hundred competing mega-capitalists would still be close to collapse, but could feasibly exist. They would compete and actually be able to valorize their capital, the way capitalists exploit workers today.
Simply imagining a society doesn't mean it can actually exist. Anarcho-capitalism can't exist because the state is what legitimizes property relations. Same with your example, both would fall apart into something new.
Humans naturally do cooperate, and we've seen workers organize to establish socialism. Further, fascism doesn't really stabilize anything, and neither does war, it only temporarily buys time while accelerating revolutionary fervor.
liberalism is defined by its adherence to capitalism; if you're not a capitalist, then you're also not a liberal.
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.
monopolies are a feature of capitalism and liberalism is defined by its regulation of capitalism; meaning that it's a part of capitalism too just like conservatism, imperialism, colonialism, and fascism are as well.