251
we must maintain the status quo
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
To anyone who supports capitalism or otherwise opposes socialism:
Do you support the idea that one man can accumulate enough wealth to own all land of this Earth, making everyone born in his empire under his rule as long as he can kill to defend it? What prevents capitalism from accomplishing this in law? What law exists that limits the borders of nations?
Why, then, must we endure a system where a single man owning the Earth and enslave it is a feature, not a bug?
https://dice.camp/@sean/114698774200264413
I just wanna know what people think. Why must this be maintained? Why is any opposition to capping wealth just the end of the world when it probably would save it, just logically thinking it through?
you didn't ask about my gun pointed at his head as well? why must only he have the gun?
You could be the "someone" being referred to. In the case you are not, nothing I said excludes you from participating.
if we both pointed guns at each others head, he would be pointing a gun at my head like you stated, but I'd also be pointing a gun at his. Why would either of us shut up in this equally threatening situation where neither are obviously in control? This is literally MAD theory btw. You are arguing countries with nukes would rather nuke each other than talk it out if you think two humans would rather kill each other over whatever made up scenario you invented to make your point on violence than try to resolve it without dying. I'm sorry, but people don't just kill because they're hungry. They'll beg first. They'll steal. Murder is often a last resort man, and any case that you may dream of, I'm sorry but capitalism isn't a better solution to it any more than an honest attempt at democratic socialism.
Maybe you're misunderstanding me, though I did say
There will always be people who are willing to break every rule and social contract to concentrate power to themselves. If violence is the last resort against them, they will succeed until it becomes the only option.
in capitalism, there are zero limitations on property. Human slavery is labor capital in capitalism (private prisons, 13th amendment). You can own people and their labor in capitalism. By you, I mean you mr nougat, with enough capital, can own immigrants today to sell their indentured servitude right this very second in these united states of america and capitalism will not only let you do it, it will reward you with government protection in the form of profit, and the cops and guards and laws to protect YOUR humans.
Or are you saying thats not feasible within the framework of capitalism and I am just not getting it?
If you are not getting it, maybe you are too poor and lower class to realize how little capital you have in capitalism that you cannot fathom how much capital means power in a capitalist society, a society in which capital is authority.
I’m not sure why you can’t read what I wrote. So I’ll be crystal clear.
Capitalism is the same as every other system that’s gone before: a few people hold the capital, and wield it as a bludgeon over the many.
I’m not sure why you think I fucking like capitalism. Nothing I’ve said suggests that at all.
Capitalism does not enforce a minimum amount of population holding capital, so it can be reduced to 1. Feature, not a bug.
Every other system? How many systems do you think we have observed in all of human history? What do you believe to be the earliest system ever devised?
No other system ever increased the minimum amount of people owning capital to be higher than a few?
Okay, you just want to argue with someone, and for some reason you picked me today, even though we substantially agree.
I fundamentally disagree that capitalism is like every other system ever done before, that is all I am saying. I need evidence that capitalism being the same as every other system is true, and I lack it. This is part of why I posed my original question. Why are people seemingly not be able to fathom a single system that can replace capitalism?