3 ms·

What you describe isn't a "capital" thing. What you describe is a "power" thing. It describes princes and bureaucracies at least as well as it does capital, and

What you describe isn't a "capital" thing. What you describe is a "power" thing. It describes princes and bureaucracies at least as well as it does capital, and there are plenty of investments into capital in the world which do not take place at these massive scales (indeed, probably the majority). This becomes particularly relevant as one prescribes massive government interventions to "fix" this concentration of power, delivering it into the hands of even-more-powerful politicians.

jessaustin 6y ago
OK, sure, royalty is also bad. We're not talking about that, and we're not talking about e.g. a small shop owner plowing some profits back into improvements to her shop or whatever you mean by "investments into capital". We're talking about the owners of vast wealth, and what they have done from the moment they or their ancestors acquired that vast wealth. They treat customers (and employees) as property and their custom (and labor) as rents to which capitalists are due by birthright, which is not humane. Now I realize, it's a bit silly to invoke such high-minded concepts in defense of the commercial interests of a group who themselves enjoy a lucrative state-supplied professional monopoly. Architects who don't like the terms under which software is available should hire some programmers. Programmers don't have a monopoly from the state, so as Autodesk knows they are relatively cheaper to hire than architects. If the architects try to lobby their way to a better commercial circumstance, which the effort described in TFA seems to indicate they will, they're likely to find themselves out-bribed by their monopolist vendor. I'm just opposed to attempted re-definitions of the word "capitalism". It is what we have seen it always to be, nothing more and nothing less.

3 ms·

What you describe isn't a "capital" thing. What you describe is a "power" thing. It describes princes and bureaucracies at least as well as it does capital, and

by fennecfoxen 6y ago

jessaustin 6y ago
OK, sure, royalty is also bad. We're not talking about that, and we're not talking about e.g. a small shop owner plowing some profits back into improvements to her shop or whatever you mean by "investments into capital". We're talking about the owners of vast wealth, and what they have done from the moment they or their ancestors acquired that vast wealth. They treat customers (and employees) as property and their custom (and labor) as rents to which capitalists are due by birthright, which is not humane. Now I realize, it's a bit silly to invoke such high-minded concepts in defense of the commercial interests of a group who themselves enjoy a lucrative state-supplied professional monopoly. Architects who don't like the terms under which software is available should hire some programmers. Programmers don't have a monopoly from the state, so as Autodesk knows they are relatively cheaper to hire than architects. If the architects try to lobby their way to a better commercial circumstance, which the effort described in TFA seems to indicate they will, they're likely to find themselves out-bribed by their monopolist vendor. I'm just opposed to attempted re-definitions of the word "capitalism". It is what we have seen it always to be, nothing more and nothing less.