3 ms·

Capitalism is anti-capitalist, so any cooperation here is against a backdrop in which capitalists are being vs. feudalism (etc.) screwed. The competition mecha

Capitalism is anti-capitalist, so any cooperation here is against a backdrop in which capitalists are being vs. feudalism (etc.) screwed. The competition mechanism at the heart of capitalism is a requirement that capitalists compete until their profit margins are very limited. This is why apple etc. are so ugly in their replies to the EU. So insofar as we regard the capitalist class as co-opting the ruling class its so they can stop capitalism, not so they can promote it.

rightbyte 3y ago
You've got an interesting point I haven't thought too much about. A threat to capitalists could also be that there could become too many of them. That would increase competition. I wonder how public traded companies should be regarded in this manner. Do capitalists have enough of an edge in voting power to not be threatened by pleb owners? Or maybe is it easier to make us hold the bag with better access to gossip and insider knowledge?
- mjburgess 3y ago
  There are two forces i can think of here: 1) public traded is good because it broadens the ownership base of a company; 2) public traded is bad because it compromises the interests of labour to align with capitalists. We should also add that public trading of companies leads boards to ever more aggressive and socially destructive forms of competition which might not be permitted if not be for their shareholders. On balance I'd say we'd be better of getting rid of public ownership in this sense, and i'd also be inclined for very high marginal taxes on high profit margins and much more radical competition regulation. This would bring capital's power more in line with labour's. But on this i've really no idea; and the analysis here is too thin
  - soco 3y ago
    But does public trading really widen the ownership base? Or the buyers are in a sufficient majority the same, so the 1-2 shares bought by "the pleb" don't actually count in any decision?

rightbyte 3y ago

You've got an interesting point I haven't thought too much about. A threat to capitalists could also be that there could become too many of them. That would increase competition. I wonder how public traded companies should be regarded in this manner. Do capitalists have enough of an edge in voting power to not be threatened by pleb owners? Or maybe is it easier to make us hold the bag with better access to gossip and insider knowledge?

mjburgess 3y ago
There are two forces i can think of here: 1) public traded is good because it broadens the ownership base of a company; 2) public traded is bad because it compromises the interests of labour to align with capitalists. We should also add that public trading of companies leads boards to ever more aggressive and socially destructive forms of competition which might not be permitted if not be for their shareholders. On balance I'd say we'd be better of getting rid of public ownership in this sense, and i'd also be inclined for very high marginal taxes on high profit margins and much more radical competition regulation. This would bring capital's power more in line with labour's. But on this i've really no idea; and the analysis here is too thin
- soco 3y ago
  But does public trading really widen the ownership base? Or the buyers are in a sufficient majority the same, so the 1-2 shares bought by "the pleb" don't actually count in any decision?