3 ms·

It's worth repeating, since so many people have different ideas about what capitalism is, but it's only having the means of production (factories, tools, employ

by OroPla 2mo ago

It's worth repeating, since so many people have different ideas about what capitalism is, but it's only having the means of production (factories, tools, employees, etc.) in private hand (as opposed to being owned by the government - a monopoly) with the purpose of making a profit (so you do not have to live paycheck to paycheck). None of that has consolidation (might as well call it monopoly) at the end game. But then again, we can't really have free market capitalism while also having state granted monopolies (IP laws). When you have a monopoly you can set the price, but in a free market supply and demand sets the price.

vrganj 2mo ago
If the means of production are in private hand and private individuals acquire profit, they will inevitably use said profits to acquire more means of production, which will beget more profits, more means of production, etc etc. They will use those riches to buy out competitors, to bribe (or "lobby" in polite parlance) legislators to tilt the rules in their favor, until they have reached near-monopoly. The free market always means monopolization, this is precisely the core contradiction of capitalism. The perfect free market with fair competition only exists in ideological fantasy. To say what we have now isn't capitalism is nothing but a no true Scotsman fallacy. This is actually existing capitalism.
- OroPla 2mo ago
  That's where legislation is supposed to step in to prevent monopolization, which currently is not happening sufficiently. The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse.
  - vrganj 2mo ago
    > The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse. Why? That's just an assertion with no backing. If the government is democratically elected, how is democratic control over resources worse than a few oligarchs acting autocratically? > which currently is not happening sufficiently. This is not by accident. This is due to the mechanisms described above, a direct result of capitalism. A few have been able to amass enough resources to use them to influence lawmakers and tilt the board in their favor. It's not an accident. It's what actually existing capitalism does.
    - OroPla 2mo ago
      Because the government then by default has a monopoly on everything. The worst of the worst. It doesn't matter who the people with the monopoly are, it matters that there is a monopoly. It's like saying that a just king is better than separation of powers. Maybe, but in which way do you ensure the king stays just? How is it that the means of production being privately owned for profit has the consequence of legislation failing to prevent monopolies? The government managed to break up the monopoly that Standard Oil had become back in 1911 just fine with capitalism existing, did it not?

by OroPla 2mo ago

vrganj 2mo ago

If the means of production are in private hand and private individuals acquire profit, they will inevitably use said profits to acquire more means of production, which will beget more profits, more means of production, etc etc. They will use those riches to buy out competitors, to bribe (or "lobby" in polite parlance) legislators to tilt the rules in their favor, until they have reached near-monopoly. The free market always means monopolization, this is precisely the core contradiction of capitalism. The perfect free market with fair competition only exists in ideological fantasy. To say what we have now isn't capitalism is nothing but a no true Scotsman fallacy. This is actually existing capitalism.

OroPla 2mo ago
That's where legislation is supposed to step in to prevent monopolization, which currently is not happening sufficiently. The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse.
- vrganj 2mo ago
  > The alternative is the government owning everything from the start, which is worse. Why? That's just an assertion with no backing. If the government is democratically elected, how is democratic control over resources worse than a few oligarchs acting autocratically? > which currently is not happening sufficiently. This is not by accident. This is due to the mechanisms described above, a direct result of capitalism. A few have been able to amass enough resources to use them to influence lawmakers and tilt the board in their favor. It's not an accident. It's what actually existing capitalism does.
  - OroPla 2mo ago
    Because the government then by default has a monopoly on everything. The worst of the worst. It doesn't matter who the people with the monopoly are, it matters that there is a monopoly. It's like saying that a just king is better than separation of powers. Maybe, but in which way do you ensure the king stays just? How is it that the means of production being privately owned for profit has the consequence of legislation failing to prevent monopolies? The government managed to break up the monopoly that Standard Oil had become back in 1911 just fine with capitalism existing, did it not?