4 ms·
1. You're conflating owners and managers. Private ownership of the means of production doesn't add anything of value, but of course organizing people and resour
by ChristianBundy 8y ago
1. You're conflating owners and managers. Private ownership of the means of production doesn't add anything of value, but of course organizing people and resources is valuable. My point is that you don't need to have a monoply (or oligopoly) of power concentrated in private shareholders.
2. I'm not interested in myths. Look up statistics on immigrant poverty under capitalism and let me know whether you'd like to continue this line of reasoning.
3. Some, yes. All? Of course not.
- ghufran_syed 8y agoAbout point 2: Almost all wealth in this country is owned by people who do not identify as Native American. The US is the most successful society economically over a long period of time. The US has a capitalist system, probably more so than most other countries. Doesn’t that imply that the wealth in this country was generated by immigrants (and their descendants) under a capitalist system?
- WalterBright 8y agoWhere do you think the vast wealth in the American middle class came from? It wasn't picked off the ground, it wasn't here in 1800, and the immigrants did not arrive with it.
- WalterBright 8y ago> All? Of course not. I can't think of any. Do you have any examples?
- WalterBright 8y ago> Private ownership of the means of production doesn't add anything of value It absolutely does, because it decides where to allocate scarce resources.