You're viewing part of a thread.
What do you think Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are?
The profit motive is bad, accumulation of Capital results in enshittification, increased exploitation, increased disparity, and Imperialism, and should be moved away from.
Socialism doesn't mean you can't own your house, or that you can't express preference, and neither does Communism.
What, specifically, is the advantage of the profit motive, in your eyes?
Additionally, we have shown that we cannot simply regulate Capitalism out of its own destruction, that cannot happen structurally, so why stick with it?
profit comes from pricing. I mean I gave an example. when an apartment complex is built there are different floors and different facings. None of that is part of the cost of building the units. The units cost to build is all the same but depending on personal preference some will want something more than another be it floor or facing. That preference will need to be "fought" over by price which will result in profit or loss. If most folks don't want a particular facing or floor then those might be sold at loss and made up for with profit from the more wanted units. Even before that construction is determined by cost of materials which is determined by how difficult it is to source them which mostly comes about because of the labor that is needed to do it. Also regulation has shown to result in better capitalism. limiting media ownership is an example. breaking up monopolies, limiting levels of profit, and taxing itself. taxing is the ultimate form of regulation really when done progressively. The more profit you make the harder it is to make more profit if all profit is taxed on a progressive scale.
profit comes from pricing.
Profit comes from selling Commodities at their Value.
I mean I gave an example. when an apartment complex is built there are different floors and different facings. None of that is part of the cost of building the units. The units cost to build is all the same but depending on personal preference some will want something more than another be it floor or facing.
Cool, this doesn't contradict anything.
That preference will need to be "fought" over by price which will result in profit or loss.
No it does not, there are methods to distribute by preference without price. Additionally, you can sell commodities without doing so for profit.
If most folks don't want a particular facing or floor then those might be sold at loss and made up for with profit from the more wanted units.
Again, don't see what this has to do with anything.
Even before that construction is determined by cost of materials which is determined by how difficult it is to source them which mostly comes about because of the labor that is needed to do it.
Sure.
Also regulation has shown to result in better capitalism. limiting media ownership is an example. breaking up monopolies, limiting levels of profit, and taxing itself. taxing is the ultimate form of regulation really when done progressively. The more profit you make the harder it is to make more profit if all profit is taxed on a progressive scale.
I didn't say regulation was bad, I said it can't fix, only delay. Are you actually reading what I'm saying, or talking past me?
Im not trying to talk past you but either we have a different definition of capitalism which means we agree but to me you want capitalism and just not call it capitalism or we just don't see things the same. Right now I see the big difference here "" distribute by preference without price". You see in most cases that implies a lack of private property. Private property means I chose what I wanted and the distribution is by how much I will give up for it. If someone or something is making the decision then im not really owning what I want to own. I honestly think this is something you and I are not going to come to terms with. You say you want currency and ownership but seem to claim you don't want profit to be a thing and im trying to explain why profit (and loss) would have to be a thing. You say "Profit comes from selling Commodities at their Value." well yeah. That is what folks competing with their currency for what they want or taking something they want less to save currency to use on something they care about more is all about.
Im not trying to talk past you but either we have a different definition of capitalism which means we agree but to me you want capitalism and just not call it capitalism or we just don't see things the same.
For clarity, I am a Communist. I want to move towards Socialism, and then Communism, over time. Capitalism necessitates production for profit, it doesn't mean any system with a market.
Right now I see the big difference here "" distribute by preference without price". You see in most cases that implies a lack of private property.
Yes, I disagree with the concept of Private Property along Marxist lines.
Private property means I chose what I wanted and the distribution is by how much I will give up for it.
No, it does not, at all. Private Property refers to individual ownership of the Means of Production.
If someone or something is making the decision then im not really owning what I want to own.
You can make these decisions without Capitalism and without the profit motive, at different points in the transition between Capitalism to Socialism to Communism.
I honestly think this is something you and I are not going to come to terms with. You say you want currency and ownership but seem to claim you don't want profit to be a thing and im trying to explain why profit (and loss) would have to be a thing.
I do not want currency in the long run, no, but in the short run it can be a useful tool. I do not want individual ownership of the Means of Production, no, but I do want personal ownership of goods and public ownership of Capital. Producing commodities and selling them for their cost of production via central planning is not Capitalism.
You say "Profit comes from selling Commodities at their Value." well yeah. That is what folks competing with their currency for what they want or taking something they want less to save currency to use on something they care about more is all about.
Not necessarily. Value and Price are not the same thing. Commodities can be sold above and below their Value.
yeah so since I want ownership and specifically a currency to buy and sell with, we just fundamentally disagree as you do not want it in the long run and I do.
You want ownwship of what? Why do you specifically need a currency? What are your goals, and why do you need Capitalism to achieve them?
Additionally, you haven't explained why you believe you even can have Capitalism in the long-run, you just kind of stopped answering those critical sections.
Because when I and another person are vying for the same thing of which there is only one I do not want a third party deciding. I want our relative decision on how much we want to to decide which currency acts as that weight. Who will spend more of the property they own (currency is property virtualized) will determine who gets it. I don't need to explain why capitalism will be around in the long run as it is a belief for both me and you. I would ask why you care about my opinion as you seem to believe the following. 1) Capitalism cannot be regulated by us as a society, which if true means capitalism cannot be removed by us as a society since removal is effectively 100% regulation. 2) capitalism will die on its own and is inevitable. So by that reasoning it does not matter what anyone thinks about it.
Because when I and another person are vying for the same thing of which there is only one I do not want a third party deciding.
You don't need Capitalism for that, nor do I understand why having a third party mediator for disagreements is a bad thing.
I want our relative decision on how much we want to to decide which currency acts as that weight.
Why do you want this? You are describing what you want, not why you want it. Additionally, you keep pretending Markets are Capitalism, Capitalism itself is only a few hundred years old.
Who will spend more of the property they own (currency is property virtualized) will determine who gets it.
Markets, not Capitalism.
I don't need to explain why capitalism will be around in the long run as it is a belief for both me and you.
I have provided mechanical evidence, you provided vibes and acknowledged my evidence, then brushed it under the rug. You do need to explain, your entire argument hinges on it.
I would ask why you care about my opinion as you seem to believe the following. 1) Capitalism cannot be regulated by us as a society, which if true means capitalism cannot be removed by us as a society since removal is effectively 100% regulation. 2) capitalism will die on its own and is inevitable. So by that reasoning it does not matter what anyone thinks about it.
-
Capitalism can be regulated, yes, but it cannot be fixed. Issues can be delayed or lowered, but as long as the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall exists, disparity will continue to rise until it snaps. Removal of Capitalism is not "100% regulation," that's nonsense.
-
Correct, mostly. Your personal feelings on the matter don't change the material conditions of Capitalism, nor its inevitable decline, but the more leftists there are that understand it and fight against fascism, the more likely we can organize and transition beyond Capitalism to Socialism, the next phase in the development of Human Mode of Production, and evetually Communism after that. If leftists do not organize, fascists win and a lot of people die to protect Capitalists.
Whats your favorite color. Blue. Why is it your favorite. Because I find it pretty. yeah but why do you find it pretty..... My answers are the why but you just ask why again. There is no point repeating agnosium. So much of what you say seems to be lets just not call it capitalism but I can tell there are small parts which I have already pointed out I want. If you want what I see as capitalism but not call it that. Well I don't care. but I really don't think you want it like I think of it. but its a guess because you keep on saying all the earmarks of capitalism is not capitalism and then also making remarks confirming this like my exchange examples. I have no idea what you see as mechanical evidence as I did not see that in our exchange.
Whats your favorite color. Blue. Why is it your favorite. Because I find it pretty. yeah but why do you find it pretty..... My answers are the why but you just ask why again.
It does reveal a lot that you'd compare how you decide your political opinions to how you pick your favorite color, vibes and aesthetics over logic.
So much of what you say seems to be lets just not call it capitalism but I can tell there are small parts which I have already pointed out I want.
You can pick houses and buy them in Socialism, just like people did in Feudalism before Capitalism.
but its a guess because you keep on saying all the earmarks of capitalism is not capitalism and then also making remarks confirming this like my exchange examples.
The earmarks of Capitalism are individual owners of the Means of Production competing in markets to sell commodities made by wage labor for profit. Markets themselves do not need Capitalism, exchange isn't unique to Capitalism.
I have no idea what you see as mechanical evidence as I did not see that in our exchange.
You said you understood the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, is that not actually true?
-