this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
462 points (98.5% liked)

Memes

53486 readers
760 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. 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
 

Is it when you use capital letters properly?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 21 hours ago (6 children)

Liberalism is the ideological aspect of capitalism. "Raw capitalism" doesn'r really mean anything.

To move onto socialism, we need to overthrow the state, replace it with a socialist one, and establish public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Countries like China, Vietnam, and Cuba have already done this, as did the former USSR.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 16 hours ago (5 children)

For liberalism, see sibling comment.

we need to overthrow the state

Capitalism is making sure that there is not much of a we.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

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.

[–] plyth@feddit.org -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

What do you mean “power accumulating?”

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?

“we,” are you asking why we aren’t organized?

Not exactly. I think that there is no 'we' among the working class which prevents the organizing.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 17 minutes ago* (last edited 16 minutes ago)

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."

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)