this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
510 points (98.3% liked)
Memes
53486 readers
673 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Capitalism with monopoly is still capitalism, Liberalism being a failed ideology does not mean it ceases to be Liberalism as it fails. There's absolutely a we within capitalism, the working classes are a we.
How would socialism prevent power from accumulating? Liberals could probably do the same with capital.
There should be a working class we in capitalism but I don't see it. Why do you think that it exists and that it is not dispersed?
What do you mean "power accumulating?" This sounds like you're talking about magic or something. Capitalists use capital for their plunder, I don't see what you mean by linking that to socialism. As for the working class "we," are you asking why we aren't organized? That takes time and effort.
People in power tend to grab more power. Like Capitalism would be acceptable if there was a progressive tax on capital. But those with much capital would collude to undermine it. Likewise socialism could also decay if the people in power would use the power to their advantage. How is that mitigated?
Not exactly. I think that there is no 'we' among the working class which prevents the organizing.
People in power don't tend to "grab more power." "Power" is not a metaphysical power that corrupts people, what actually happens is that systems like capitalism reward those that get profit by any means necessary.
Capitalism would not be acceptable even with a progressive tax. The basic fact is that capitalists want to pay as little as possible while workers want to be paid as much as possible, and that all profit a capitalist could make comes from value workers created.
Not only this, but capitalism trends towards imperialism and collapse, it's unsustainable. Over time, there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall due to a rise in the ratio of capital to labor as representing the value of a commodity. This is combatted by expansion to raise absolute profits, and by monopoly to raise rates of profit. What this creates is a systemic push towards underdeveloping the global sourh, placing compradors in power, and super-exploiting foreign workers for super profits.
The US Empire is at the helm, but western Europe and strategic allies also benefit and participate in this system. No amount of progressive taxation can fix this, what we need is for humanity to become the master of capital. We need to work towards collectivization of all production and distribution, and orient this towards satisfying the needs of everyone.
I also have no idea what you're hinting at by saying "there's no we."
Why do you believe that?
Same problem in Socialism among workers unless all are paid equally.
Capitalists bring the company. There would be no capitalists if workers would create their own companies in sufficcient numbers.
Yes
I think that is lore of hope that is wrong. At last there would be one capitalist, owning everything. What should challenge his power if workers are kept placit and divided?
Why? If there would be enough taxation, UBI jobs would pay their worth and profits would shrink. Problem is that Capitalists would oppose this, and still resource allocation by value and not benefit.
That's fine with me.
Where is the collective that does the collectivization?
Power isn't a supernatural corrupting force, power is a tool, not a need itself. There is no tendency for those in power to try to get more.
Socialism works to eradicate class distinctions. Workers wanting more for their labor is fine, but in capitalism it's the capitalists that hold all of the leverage and thus pay workers as little as possible. Capitalists are parasites.
Capitalists do not "bring the company," they own the paper that legally entails them to it. The workers are the ones that run the company, capitalists are entirely unnecessary from an economic standpoint.
If there was a single capitalist owning everything, then there wouldn't be. Capitalism demands competition and circulation of commodities, capitalists depend on that for profit. If it all dies, then capitalism would cease to function and break down, and the ensuing fallout would result in either socialism or barbarism.
As I alluded to above, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall in a finite world results in gradual breakdown of capitalism. Imperialism causes it to stick around for longer, but also prompts revolution in the global south. Taxation cannot stop the fundamental problems with sustaining an economy where rates of profit lower over time and competition dies.
As for collectivization, it just sounds like you're asking why we aren't yet organized. Some countries already have organized and successfully established socialism, the rest of us still need to organize.
Money and Capital is also not a need. Of course, capital is accumulating. But without making good decisions, capital would decay and be overtaken by competitors. Capitalists make good decisions to maintain and increase power. Power is no physical need but a mental one.
Why do people want to rise in hierarchies? Not for money alone.
How to settle among different classes of workers?
Only without UBI. If workers can walk away, they can ask for the value of their work and capitalists could only get the value of their own work.
If workers would do the business part.
No, capitalism is all about preventing competition. It's liberal markets that need competition. With competition there are no profits above production costs. The profit of capitalists does not only come from underpaying workers but also from overpaying buyers.
Commodities would still be bought by workers if there is only one capitalist. Earth would be one big mining town.
If somebody owns everything they can command everything. Why would they need profits?
No. The left seems to look at workers and sees lack of organization. But the workers don't see workers, they see apprentices, skilled workers, bosses, management. They see women and men, they see nations and races. There is no joined identity. There is hardly anybody who wants to be organized as a worker.
Power is not a mental need nor a physical one, it's a tool. Capitalism selects for those that can best get the most profits, ergo power is useful in achieving those ends. It isn't about making "good" decisions, but profitable ones.
This is a cop-out answer. People don't have a natural desire to "rise in hierarchies." If that's the best way to improve your material conditions then people will desire to rise, not for an obsession over power or domination.
If you mean between the peasantry and proletariat, the answer is to industrialize agriculture and fold everyone into the proletariat gradually (alongside collectivizing production and distribution to erase class). If you mean between, say, plumbers and engineers, those are the same class.
Utter fantasy. UBI is just a form of social welfare, but with capitalists in charge of the state UBI will only exist in a manner that benefits capitalists. The state isn't above class struggle, but within it. Further, capitalists do not labor. The day to day management of companies is done by workers, capitalists contribute nothing but the fact that they legally own the tools.
Profit comes from underpaying workers. Profit is made by selling commodities for their value, which is made up of raw materials, tool usage, etc called "constant capital," and for wages, called "variable capital." Constant capital is crystallized prior labor, the profit comes from paying a worker for only a small portion of their labor time, regulated around cost of reproduction of labor (ie, minimum customary living standards). Monopoly prices raise the rate of profit, which is why companies try to seek monopoly, but they also need competition in order to keep circulation of commodities flowing for their own valorization of invested capital.
Capitalism kills itself, it's a contradictory system.
Think of it this way: If a single capitalist owned everything, then cost of goods collapses. There is no circulation anymore, only planned production and distribution, and absolutely no organized class for protecting said single capitalist. Capitalism would cease to function. Company towns only "worked" because they existed in the context of a grander market that the capitalists could get all that they wanted from.
Because that is the driving basis for capitalism and material gain under it. That's why I'm saying that this hypothetical is impossible and would collapse immediately, just like anarcho-capitalism. It fundamentally misunderstands how capitalism works.
This is a very western viewpoint, and one that is increasingly incorrect. As capitalism decays, class awareness is rising alongside class struggle.