This is what early reddit was like honestly. I don't think lemmy will hit reddit's peak popularity but I don't think anyone wants any lemmy instance near that popular
dreadbeef
I say we look to and learn from places like rojava before we look to those with gulags when we theorize political and economic systems.
I fundamentally disagree that capitalism is like every other system ever done before, that is all I am saying. I need evidence that capitalism being the same as every other system is true, and I lack it. This is part of why I posed my original question. Why are people seemingly not be able to fathom a single system that can replace capitalism?
a few people hold the capital
Capitalism does not enforce a minimum amount of population holding capital, so it can be reduced to 1. Feature, not a bug.
Capitalism is the same as every other system that’s gone before
Every other system? How many systems do you think we have observed in all of human history? What do you believe to be the earliest system ever devised?
No other system ever increased the minimum amount of people owning capital to be higher than a few?
in capitalism, there are zero limitations on property. Human slavery is labor capital in capitalism (private prisons, 13th amendment). You can own people and their labor in capitalism. By you, I mean you mr nougat, with enough capital, can own immigrants today to sell their indentured servitude right this very second in these united states of america and capitalism will not only let you do it, it will reward you with government protection in the form of profit, and the cops and guards and laws to protect YOUR humans.
Or are you saying thats not feasible within the framework of capitalism and I am just not getting it?
If you are not getting it, maybe you are too poor and lower class to realize how little capital you have in capitalism that you cannot fathom how much capital means power in a capitalist society, a society in which capital is authority.
if we both pointed guns at each others head, he would be pointing a gun at my head like you stated, but I'd also be pointing a gun at his. Why would either of us shut up in this equally threatening situation where neither are obviously in control? This is literally MAD theory btw. You are arguing countries with nukes would rather nuke each other than talk it out if you think two humans would rather kill each other over whatever made up scenario you invented to make your point on violence than try to resolve it without dying. I'm sorry, but people don't just kill because they're hungry. They'll beg first. They'll steal. Murder is often a last resort man, and any case that you may dream of, I'm sorry but capitalism isn't a better solution to it any more than an honest attempt at democratic socialism.
We need to get money out of politics
A) America is a capitalist system. B) In America, the law is for sale.
Capitalism is a system that doesn't prevent the sale of law. Nothing in capitalist theory prevented the sale of law from happening. It literally was put up for sale and is now available to those with capital (aka, not you or me). Capitalism is the system of America. Capitalism allows the sale of law. Capitalism supports the sale of law, and the only thing stopping it is supposed to be democracy, but that's failing at the moment.
All of this to say, money in politics is a observably feature of capitalism, not a bug. This is a failure of democracy that's supposed to reign in capitalism but when so-called democratic leaders choose to not act, capitalism wins. This is not a surprise at all, because capitalism wants everything to be purchasable, even power and authority.
Why does anyone ever sell land? Maybe because they're in massive debt and the only thing they have left is a family christmas tree farm that's 100 acres. Maybe they got high and chose to. It honestly has no merit to the debate, I encourage you to engage with the questions posed, specifically the final one.
"the status quo (democratic capitalism) must be maintained" got it!
you didn't ask about my gun pointed at his head as well? why must only he have the gun?
Not if he's surrounded by dead bodies, but capitalism can't prevent that either.
A good time to ask this question after it's used for good and we have politicians in office who aren't against the will of the people, not before