929

Who could have forseen the woes of capitalism? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 9 months ago by balderdash9@lemmy.zip to c/memes@lemmy.ml

97 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 82 points 9 months ago

We're at the point where the Pentagon needs to check with Elon Musk before making decisions because he personally controls 50% of the satellites in orbit and if he feels offended he can prevent the US, and anyone else, from using them. He can single handedly turn the tides of war. He's undoubtedly more powerful than the US president. He's unelected and has zero accountability. Why are we all ok with this??

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 39 points 9 months ago

Because these ~~oil~~ ~~railroad~~ tech barons have been good for the economy and therefore the growth of the United States, and no one wanted to stop one while there was still more money to be made and now it's late and gonna be an uphill battle to undo.

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 28 points 9 months ago

The fact that the DoD hasn't seized control of Starlink as a national security asset is insane. They could even pay him a fair market price for the company and keep all the employees on. Just appoint government personnel at the highest levels to ensure it stays online.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

That's not a good solution either. The government seizing assets from private citizens isn't cool. That's oppressive. But the government should have built that network with our tax dollars, not given our tax dollars to a private citizen to build and keep all the profits from. I'm not saying he should retain control, but I am saying he should have never been given control.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The government seizing assets from private citizens isn’t cool.

It’s very good and cool.

[-] Saurok@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

It would be very good and cool under a socialist state, but not in the US currently and I'll explain my reasoning. In the US, nationalization represents the transfer of an enterprise from a single capitalist firm to the capitalist class as a whole via the state. Nationalization can bring benefits to both the working and capitalist classes, but ultimately the workers are still being exploited by the state for private profits instead of social ends. When an enterprise is nationalized by a capitalist state, the former owners are usually generously compensated with state bonds bearing a fixed rate of interest; this enables them to continue to exploit the workers involved at a rate of profit now guaranteed by the state. The class struggle continues, but but it is now necessary for the workers to struggle not against a single private management but against the capitalist state in its entirety. This is one of the reasons why Mussolini and Hitler heaped praise on FDR for his New Deal policies. They did a lot of good for people during the depression, but they also were market interventionist in a way that put a lot of corporate control in the hands of the capitalist state.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I won’t nitpick and just say that you’re mostly right. Nationalization within the imperial core has only ever provided small, temporary relief for a labor aristocracy that benefits from imperial super-profits.

Nationalizations outside of the imperial core is a move toward independence from the imperialist states, so it’s much more significant. So significant that the imperial core may try for regime change to claw those resources back.