930
Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
930 points (95.1% liked)
Memes
51750 readers
1369 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
Is the market some form of holy spirit? Regulation comes from the market, not despite it.
Regulation opposes the market.
Regulation restricts competition, and is a natural result of companies using accumulated Capital to institutionalize their own positions and maintain a given edge. Capitalism erases its own existence.
I think we're both saying the same thing.
Maybe, but you phrase it like we can have unregulated Capitalism for any period longer than an afternoon, and I'm explaining why we can't.
We've never tried it so we're both bouncing hypotheticals off the wall.
We can't try unregulated Capitalism either way, that's like suggesting we try feudalism. We can't go back and keep the technological progress we have.
But feudalism has been tried.
In Scotland is was only abolished in 2004.
I'm saying trying to turn the clock backwards is futile, Capitalism has already reached the dying stages of its development. There's no way to stsrt fresh.
That just nicely brings this conversation back to my point that pure capitalism has never been attempted.
Then what's your point? If we can't attempt it and it can't exist to begin with, what's your point?
I've said we haven't attempted pure capitalism, I've never claimed that is can't exist or we can't attempt it.
I have claimed that, and explained why. You never pushed back on that.
You compared it to an archaic system that has been tried as proof that it couldn't be tried.
Yes, we can't "undevelop" Capitalism to a point of no regulation just like we can't go back to feudalism. Modes of Production are historical stages of development alongside the progression of technology, they aren't "ideas" people adopt because they sound nice.
That's just a thinly veiled use of the Wookie defence in trying to explain your position.
If you're confused by something, you can feel free to ask for further elaboration, though I can't just recite Capital in Lemmy comments.
He published that between 1867 and 1894 yet despite trying all the ideas in all the different permutations no one has been successful yet, over a hundred and thirty years later.
Maybe it's time it admit it's a flawed experiment and try something different?
What do you mean "no one has been successful?" Every AES state has had myriad successes, the dissolution of the USSR had less to do with Socialism and more to do with separation from the global economy. Either way, though, Capital is an analysis of Capitalism, not Socialism, and very clearly explains the mechanical issues with Capitalism in the long term and how it develops, which is why I brought it up.
Capital is an analysis of capitalism and how it will segue into socialism.
Partially, yes, but the focus is on Capitalism itself, hence the header "a Critique of Political Economy." It explains quite well how Capitalism functions and why it cannot last.
Volume One was published 131 years ago?
Yes, your point?
That's basically it.
That the book exists?