524
Is it when you govern from the capitol?
(lemmy.ml)
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 17 Dec 2025
524 points (98.3% liked)
Memes
53495 readers
936 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
So socialism is only stable if the people, and especially those in power are happy.
Isn't that the same concentration of power?
Only in global communism. The charged workers don't have to be the same as the producing workers.
I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.
There can be circulation. People earn wages and buy commodities. It's like socialism, just people get less because the capitalist get's more than everybody else.
If all resources are available there is no need to sell abroad, or to buy fron there.
Why is that inevitable?
Why rely on it instead of building a 'we' on its own?
That's true of any society, for the most part. Socialist countries do end up doing this much better than peer countries though. Also, in socialism, the working class is in power. Administrative positions exist, but they aren't unaccountable or anything.
Not at all. Collectivization of production and distribution into one democratically run system does naturally follow from the groundwork paved by late stage capitalism, yes, but this collectivization also brings with it democratization of power.
I don't see how this relates to communism, moreover the working class as a whole is the class that produces and consumes. The company towns only worked somewhat because the commodities they produced were sold outside, making everything a company town wouldn't work.
Still don't see your point.
Not at all. Buying goods with money earned isn't the same as circulation of capital. Capital transmogrifies from money to productive commodities to produced commodities back into money in a grand expanding circuit, but without such a system you no longer have capitalism, and prices collapse. This "mega-capitalist" would be overthrown instantly and socialism or barbarism would take its place.
There is for profit. You're trying to create a weird utopian mega-capitalism that would, the instant it existed, collapse into socialism or barbarism.
A single person can't actually own the entire economy. They would be ousted instantly. This is the same kind of utopian thinking that powers anarcho-capitalists.
We don't, we rely on organizing. Capitalism's decay speeds up that process.
I don't understand why concentration onto a single capitalist or a small group should destabilize the system.
A hunter gatherer tribe can live by itself. The world run by a capitalist could as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
The single capitalist would still own the means of production.
The capitalist could buy everything for a penny. But they don't have to. They own everything and can pay workers the wages for the workers to survive. But then the capitalist sells the goods for them at the stores at the prices that reflect the effort to produce them if the capitalist wants efficency, or any other price depending on the goals.
Why? Give people entertainment and hope and fear and they will just keep working.
Make it a hundred.
In which way? Wiki couldn't help me.
Decay lets some people suffer. Coupled with wars and fascism the system can still be stable. There must be something in humans that makes them want to cooperate. Organized suffering people alone will disperse when the suffering is over.
You're confusing the ability for non-capitalist systems to function without circulation of commodities as their basis with the ability for capitalism to do so. Capitalism functions by this, it's how capital is valorized.
A "capitalist" system where you have a single person that owns everything is both structurally impossible (similar to anarcho-capitalism) and also not capitalism. You've gone beyond the relations of bourgeois and proletarians into a system owned by a single autocrat, which would immediately cease. Capital isn't circulating, and it isn't being valorized, and this one person could not possibly get everyone to go along with treating them as god-emperor.
These kinds of hypotheticals will never come to pass, and thus it's pointless to discuss beyond entertainment value.
Market efficiency doesn't exist here, there isn't a market for labor. It's one capitalist. Prices don't come from thin-air, and the capitalist has no use for money because they own literally everything. Systems of accounting would not work here.
A hundred competing mega-capitalists would still be close to collapse, but could feasibly exist. They would compete and actually be able to valorize their capital, the way capitalists exploit workers today.
Simply imagining a society doesn't mean it can actually exist. Anarcho-capitalism can't exist because the state is what legitimizes property relations. Same with your example, both would fall apart into something new.
Humans naturally do cooperate, and we've seen workers organize to establish socialism. Further, fascism doesn't really stabilize anything, and neither does war, it only temporarily buys time while accelerating revolutionary fervor.