Is it when you use capital letters properly?

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    You’re confusing capitalists, ie capital owners, with liberals, those who are pro-capitalism. As for Lemmy, its growth is tied to recognition and Reddit’s decay, the established community on Reddit is itself the draw.

    • IronBird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      what’s the cutoff between capital owners and regular rich assholes, it a certain $ amount or is just as soon as your the one paying people?

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        There are blurred lines when it comes to the edges of class, but capitalists as a class are those that essentially make their profits by purchasing labor and raw materials, and selling the products of that labor and raw material in a market.

    • plyth@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I would say only a subset of liberals accept raw Capitalism. Liberals need free markets which is a contradiction with Capitalism.

      To have less capitalistic structures, people would have to support something with no immedite benefits. Just waiting for Capitalism’s decline is like waiting for Reddit’s decline. It’s always there but never so much that the majority switches. Something is missing that people act on their own.

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        What makes you talk so confidently about things you clearly don’t know the first thing about?

        • plyth@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Obviously the lack of knowledge. I don’t know better. What do you think is wrong?

      • eldavi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        liberalism is defined by its adherence to capitalism; if you’re not a capitalist, then you’re also not a liberal.

        • plyth@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Liberalism requires individual freedom, including free markets. Capitalism ends with monopolies that destroy free markets.

          It is not the same. Liberal societies must want regulated markets.

          • eldavi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            monopolies are a feature of capitalism and liberalism is defined by its regulation of capitalism; meaning that it’s a part of capitalism too just like conservatism, imperialism, colonialism, and fascism are as well.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          For liberalism, see sibling comment.

          we need to overthrow the state

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

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              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 [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                2 days ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  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 [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days 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.”