GhostCheese t1_izcjaym wrote
In a capitalist society, either the capitalists don't let it happen, creating artificial scarcity or:
abundance based non profits will form and out compete for profit enterprises, because they can sell without a profit motive.
this will drive the prices of abundant goods way down, and drive for-profit endeavors in the sector out of business, but before that happens they will try to make it illegal to do so.
there will be political strife. maybe violence. for abundance to flourish capitalism must suffer. it is zero sum in this sense.
by its nature abundant goods are not profitable.
ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_izdk6tn wrote
co-ops?
FistaFish t1_ize2qkd wrote
the hell of capitalism is the firm, not that the firm has a boss.
ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_izgxvx6 wrote
The capitalist firm. Doing things in GROUPS is still necessary. Loads of things people can't do as standalone professionals. What's your suggestion if not co-ops? Every time I had to make this question the answer was co-ops but with a different name, so think hard.
FistaFish t1_izi0j8q wrote
co-operative labour is not a co-op. A co-op is a worker owned capitalist business. The boss has been removed yet all the vital laws of capital still remain.
ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_izi1cgd wrote
The vital law of spreading capital among workers instead of shareholders? Because those are also gone.
Use your goddamn brain. Co-op is wealth distribution. Co-op is workers owning their means of production. How are those vital laws of capitalism?
Mind articulating your proposal a little further?
FistaFish t1_izi1xmg wrote
Commodity production, exchange and circulation still exist. The means of production should not be worker owned, but socially owned. A co-op will not cease to have a capitalist nature because of the owner being the workers, but the workers will take up all the necessary roles of the capitalist.
ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_izi35uz wrote
Look, you seem to have your heart in the right place but right now you are in contrarian mode and you only care about winning the internet argument and won't hear. So I won't bother. Spend more time thinking about this and good luck there.
FistaFish t1_izi3b5j wrote
alr, whatever, I guess Marxism is contrarianism then..
ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_izidfqt wrote
Again, heart in the right place.
Co-ops are very much marxism.
If you think Marx suggested central ownership you never read Marx.
FistaFish t1_izihw0h wrote
"To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.
Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.
When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character."
Literally in the communist manifesto. I could start quoting capital if you'd like, I have all three volumes at my desk right now.
ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_izjxi1h wrote
And you read that as government ownership?
FistaFish t1_izjxnh9 wrote
no? Who said anything about governments?
ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_izk37e0 wrote
What do you mean by social ownership? Who exactly owns what exactly, and through what institutions?
FistaFish t1_izk3k8k wrote
I thought you were supposed to be the Marx expert, considering you said I haven't read him. So why don't you tell me, since Marx has given the answer to that question so many times.
ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_izk85rd wrote
Right. You don't know how to answer the question. I thought you were supposed to be the Marx expert.
FistaFish t1_izk8g4q wrote
You have already called me stupid, said I haven't read Marx, that I'm just a contrarian, etc etc. You've also said you were going to give up talking to me, yet you're still here. I have already understood you don't want to listen to me, so I'm just having fun for as long as you'll let me.
ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_izk9fpr wrote
You are literally answering me in seconds when I take multiple hours between the convo because I enjoy wasting my employer's time during work. Who do you think is having fun?
You want social ownership without co-ops and without government. So when your gotcha must be either small communities (that is still government but small), or anarchist (that is delusional borderline libertarian unless you have co-ops) I don't know what else to do but laugh really hard
FistaFish t1_izkhpdv wrote
You keep putting words in my mouth it's fucking hilarious
ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_izmji5q wrote
Hi kid, you think you sound clever but the problem for you is everyone reading this knows what the options are, you don't need to reveal your "secret sauce" for social ownership.
You say it is social ownership but: it isn't central government, it isn't community governments, it isn't co-ops, it isn't capitalist and it isn't delusional anarcho-goodwill-pipedream.
Your problem: there is no other option.
You can't sit there and attempt to pretend you hold another answer for a debate which is literally centuries old, with hundreds of authors already having published the well known alternatives.
This is exactly why your "uh oh I won't say what it is and then just claim you are putting words in my mouth" can't work in this context: because nobody will give 2 seconds credit to the idea that you may be some genius who came up with an yet unknown and highly plausible solution for this problem yet spends time on Reddit instead of publishing a best selling book.
I will not get a notification from you so don't even bother writing.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments