Remember, the social Democrats sided with the Nazis over the socialists. They’ve done it every time they’ve been given the opportunity, and will continue to do so as many times as people fall for their shtick.

“The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house."
-Audre Lorde

  • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    How do you have private ownership of enterprise and the means of production without then allowing those individuals to make What should be collective decisions? The factory owner, unregulated, polluted. With regulations under a capitalist system, he still pollutes, but he has to put a muffler, and the area where his factory is has been designated a sacrifice zone and those living there less important than the profits of the owner.

    Where do the rights of the people fit in when you give property itself rights? How do you maintain private property without violent enforcement? How do you then prevent those with private property from co-opting the very violent enforcers for their own means (such as the regular use of police to bust union activity), or purchasing the regulators and regulatory bodies and using them to create regulations that don’t restrict them, but instead raise the bar for entry into the market?

    There’s not yet been a capitalist society invulnerable to market and regulatory capture. In fact, there’s entire books that show, with the math to prove it, that this is an inevitable outcome of the system, and that all our regulations and reforms do is stave off the inevitable for a short while longer.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      allowing those individuals to make What should be collective decisions

      What should be collective decisions?

      he still pollutes

      Not invariably, if you charge him for it and have sufficient enforcement, the pollution will be incidental.

      you give property itself rights

      Please explain, I don’t see how ownership does that.

      without violent enforcement?

      That’ll be inevitable either way, if nothing else to prevent assault.

      co-opting the very violent enforcers for their own means … or purchasing the regulators and regulatory bodies

      By making a democracy structure that is minimally influenced by money by highly valuing the opinion of the people and heavily regulating campaign contributions.

      inevitable outcome of the system

      Please point to those. Seems to me like you get cycles of increasing and decreasing capital control.