3 ms·
> The problem with a system based on taking is that one runs out of things to take. Pretty damning critique of capitalists there, comrade.
by KingMob 2y ago
> The problem with a system based on taking is that one runs out of things to take.
Pretty damning critique of capitalists there, comrade.
- WalterBright 2y agoWhat was America like before capitalists? and after? Where did all that wealth come from, comrade?
- Apocryphon 2y agoDid you know there used to be people who lived on that land
- WalterBright 2y agoI missed the railroads, steel industries, chip manufacturers, iphones, etc. that were looted from those people? BTW, studies of the bones of pre-Columbian Indians shows they worked hard and suffered from periodic famines, as well as a lot of violence.
- Apocryphon 2y agoTherein lies the commonality between all economic systems: where there are people, there is the taking. Industries tend to require raw materials, which many times are located in or around land.
- WalterBright 2y agoFree markets are not built around taking. They are built around exchanging.
- Apocryphon 2y agoAh, the starry-eyed utopianism. Marxists and Objectivists are truly funhouse mirror images; they may look completely different from one another, but both belong at the carnival.
- t-3 2y agoFree markets are a ideal which has never been achieved, much like socialism. There is, and never has been, a market without regulation, and with only voluntary participation and without stolen goods being exchanged.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- KingMob 2y agoThose things weren't looted from the natives. But the profits were looted from the workers who actually built all that stuff. Capitalists aren't the ones hammering in steel spikes or wearing clean-room fab suits.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- anonfordays 2y ago[flagged]
- KingMob 2y agoBetter for the natives and enslaved Africans, that's for sure.