Capitalism was nice only in the beginning, in the honeymoon phase.
Now it turned into feudalism and genocide.
People should have picked communism. Now they will live in hell and die.
Bourgs are slaves to capital. If higher profits are to be made by designing products to break down, they are forced to do it or lose their privileged class position.
there is tremendous popular confusion over the terminology when it comes to capitalism because capitalists have always very aggressively pushed the idea that capitalism is synonymous with markets and buying/selling things and that capitalism is the only economic system there is, thou shalt have no other gods before me etc. but the real definition of capitalism is right there in the word: capital-ism, an ideology solely devoted to the accumulation of capital. buying and selling and trading things doesn't make you a capitalist, it just makes you a human being conducting business like humans have been doing since the beginning of recorded history. it is when you make perpetual expansion and accumulation of greater wealth your one and only priority that you become a capitalist.
if you open a hamburger store and sell hamburgers and it stays the same size forever and you are perfectly content with making an honest practical living cooking and selling hamburgers to the local community, you're not a capitalist, you're just a humble hamburger merchant. but if you expand it into a multi-billion dollar international franchise with 50,000 hamburger stores all over the world staffed by desperate poor people and stoned teenagers and multi-million dollar ad campaigns featuring happy african-americans eating fake photo-enhanced prop hamburgers and saying "yeeeeeeeeeah booooooooi!!!!" and you're a billionaire ceo riding around in private jets and helicopters and going to secret yacht parties in international waters doing coke and having sex with 12-year-olds that get thrown overboard and fed to the sharks when you're done with them and you don't even remember how to cook a hamburger anymore or what a hamburger even tastes like anymore, then you are a capitalist.
>>2903846>living cooking and selling hamburgers to the local community, you're not a capitalist, you're just a humble hamburger merchant.mate, that hamburger merchant isnt gonna last long. if you dont expand, youre gonna get fucked by competition.
>>2903834"honeymoon period" aka late victorian england lol
>>2903861nta, but this is 100% capitalist propaganda that you have fallen for. this is one the things that capitalists say and spend billions of dollars on propaganda repeating the same sentiment so as to justify their lifestyle and worldview, their infinite greed and to justify a system that serves this desire to the detriment of anything else. go to any city, any town, any village, and you will find countless upon countless of examples of the petty bourgeois shopkeeper and proprietor who get along just fine. in fact, the only reason these places go out of business is because of the type of person who was described in that post you quoted, the capitalist who is ravenously hungry, infinitely greedy, who wants to corner an entire market and drive all his competition out of business, and he sells this as something that's "good" for society.
>>2903861This is only true in an absolute sense, yes eventually the rate of profit will be so low they will end up cannibalized by capitalists, but that shit could take 10 or 500 years.
I have the most unpopular proposal possible: a abundance and anti monopoly liberals are historically progressive and should be supported. The current enshittification regime is in no way inevitable or unfixable within the scope of the mode of production and only by fully developing the means of production under capitalism will we actually transcend it.
Socdems, other leftish libs, and even Revolutionaries are naive to the problems of monopoly (thinking they can either regulate it fairly or outright control it in the public interest) when what is almost always required is competition.
(Not for nothing does Theil tell us openly that competition is for losers while only monopolists get power and control- well, let's make a loser out of him.)
>>2903834>feudalismCope harder
>People should have picked communismNot how it works, but you certainly didn’t choose the real movement yourself
It is kind of interesting how a century and a half ago people seriously believed that capitalism was about to collapse and communism was immanent, when capitalism was still in its 'heroic' stage and so much industrial expansion and progress had yet to be built out.
And nowadays we're living in material abundance and immense inequality, capital has no room to expand productively and we have mass underemployment, rent-seeking and asset speculation. But workers have been so thoroughly domesticated by capital that they simply cannot imagine a way of life where you don't work for a wage or produce things for the purpose of market exchange.
>>2903834Early capitalism was not nice, whether you say it's 16th century merchants making their own little slave islands to sell sugar like at Cape Verde, or peasants being kicked off the land so they can work 12 hours a day in dingy factories where they lose fingers and inhale noxious fumes and live in cramped shanty towns full of horse manure and garbage. See: "The Condition of the Working Class in England" by Engels.
>>2903900Let’s be real, there hasn’t been a form of human organization that’s been nice. Hunter gatherers were completely at the mercy of nature and would starve after a failed hunt or in bad weather. Slavery and feudalism were much the same but on a larger scale with bad harvests and the occasional plague or foreign invasion. Communism isn’t going to be nice until it’s mature enough to have shed bourgeois subjectivity and birthmarks entirely and none of us will see that in our lifetimes assuming another socialist experiment can ever even get off the ground again.
Early capitalism gave us the transatlantic slave trade.
<The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm>>2903893>capital has no room to expand productivelycapitalism has barely touched africa. unfortunately I don't think they will develop before global conflict re-aligns all the capital centers like the first two world wars did
>>2903911actually it was the rise of human society itself that gave us the global slave trade, rome was built on the backs of conquered foreign slaves. clearly this means that society is fascist and we need to back to being tribesmen in loincloths genociding each other for coconuts
>>2903861>mate, that hamburger merchant isnt gonna last long. if you dont expand, youre gonna get fucked by competition.yes, there are no local stores anywhere in the world, there is only mcdonalds, every town in america doesn't have a hundred of rinky dink family-owned shops that have stayed in business with the same staff in the same place selling the same product for decades. and the corporate world is full of highly stable and reputable firms that don't operate on razor-thin margins with constant turnover and don't constantly get bought out and rebranded under different names and end up being owned by some holding company in saudi arabia.
like i said, this is the religious mythology and nihilistic psychological projection of the capitalists, that there is no other economic model but capitalism, it is impossible to run a business sustainably and rationally, everyone in the world is elon musk and being greedy and stupid and insane is all human beings have ever been or will ever be capable of. it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, braindead dogmatic cult mentality where if you repeat something often enough it becomes fact.
We should have picked the communism. Now we lost.
>>2903893I think they more thought on misery. While abundance or scarcity may include things like scarcity of parking lots.. While capitalism did not eliminate misery, we criticize it for "made up" scracity.
>>2903917It was maintenant religion and racism (no soul for black people, they weren't human before being slaves, vs roman slaves that could emancipate themselves and were seen as humans anyway)
>>2904190"made up"/inherent. Misery seem a better word. In some cases, eliminating scarcity, may cause misery, like climate change, or long or dangerous work days, etc.
>>2904207I asked google: at what time in history elminating misery was replaced with eliminating scarcity
>The transition from viewing the economic problem as eliminating human misery (a moral, social, and existential plight) to eliminating material scarcity (a technical problem of production and growth) took place primarily during the late 18th to the late 19th centuries, accelerating with the rise of classical and neoclassical economics.
>The Result of the Shift>Once "misery" was formally translated into "scarcity," the prescribed cure changed entirely. Instead of pursuing social reforms or moral duties to eliminate misery, the global priority shifted toward unbounded technological innovation and economic growth to conquer material scarcity. >>2904219Yes.. but did it lie in this case? Still, if you talk in "framework" of scarcity, you assume
>.. stripped economics of its moral and social philosophy, rebuilding it as a data-driven science of optimization under constraints.>They officially defined economics as the study of how humans allocate scarce resources _to satisfy infinite wants._Which is contradictory, I just highlight this contradiction.
Also the lying machine say Marx did not accept the framework of scarcity. It cites
>Grundrisse, Marx envisioned a communist future where automation would advance so significantly that necessary labor would shrink to a minimum. Society would move from the "realm of necessity" to the "realm of freedom," operating on the post-scarcity principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." So you see, Marx still use the word "necessary", though, "automation advanced significantly".
>>2904224>Yes.. but did it lie in this case?Yes. That's the point of the lying machine.
>>2904228I understand you want to sound cool by highliting the principle of machine operation. I did not ask that.
>>2904217>>2904224Well, of course bourgeois society would elevate material abundance over human health and well-being. As would the domesticated leftoids which were raised within such a society.
>>2903964>>2903873imagine being so mad that you have to respond to me twice just because i stated the obvious. i am not the one here defending small businesses lol
>>2903884fuck off incentive anon
>>2904236Did you ask the llm to come up with that response for you too, you fucking retard?
>>2903834>Capitalism was nice only in the beginning, in the honeymoon phase.mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm no. let's read marx (picrel)
even in the richest, most imperialist country on earth, in early capitalism, they were putting soap and ashes in the bread to make a quick buck.
you didnt pick communism and now the climate will kill you
>>2903846>>2903873>The problem with capitalism doesn't come from its inherent contradictions, it comes from… greed! Exactly! If people just weren't greedy, all of our problems would be solved!Kill yourself.
>Capitalism was nice only in the beginnin
Lmao no it wasn't you bourgeois freak
>>2904476read. don't just scan.
It wasn't "good", it was historically progressive, much like ancient slavery and the colonial invasion of the Americas were historically progressive.
Capitalism nowadays is much better for the average worker than it was in the industrial revolution, however it's not historically progressive anymore and due to change.
>>2904528If progress isn't good, why would anyone support it?
>>2904529Taking bitter medication is not good but it's necessary. Growing old is not "good" but it's inevitable.
>>2904516You are openly advocating for class collaboration, claiming the petty bourgeoisie is fine and saying capitalism is not capitalism unless the McPorkies own everything. Well, guess what? This ideal "petty capitalism" without big monopolies simply cannot exist for long because it will inevitably degenerate into the gigahitler hell we're living in, which will keep getting worse unless the relations of the means of production change. It's clear to me that you don't understand materialism.
>>2904530>medicineMedicine is good for us, but progress isn't, as you say.
So, your example includes something which is good.
So, if progress isn't good, why should anyone support it?
>death is inevitableIf "progress" is death, we should oppose it, no?
>>2904242It's "real neoliberalism has never been tried" poster or "neoliberal(ism) poster" for short actually. If you're going to try to poison the well at least use the correct inflammatory title.
>>2904529Because it's better. Not good, but better. Conditions start at irredeemably awful and improve until they're merely terrible. This is progress, but it is not "good"
And people do, in fact, regularly oppose progress. Many people are quite content to wallow in the misery they know rather than take the risk of changing things. (The UK is a nation almost entirely composed of such people plus a narrow malicious ruling strata, since all the others emigrated as soon as they got the chance.)
Contra the appellation above, this is why I openly defend and appreciate Mao. Mao forced through a lot of progressive reforms in China - most obviously literacy and women's rights - which were vetoed or misappropriated under India's bourgeois democracy. This is why market reform in China under Deng was such a success while in India it's been a much more dragged out process: China's population had already been modernised, they were just poor, while India had the idiocy of rural life weighing it down. >>2904572>better, but not good"Better" literally means "more good".
So, progress to you means something "more good" than not.
So, progress should be supported BECAUSE it is more good than not.
You contradict yourself - in proposing progress opposite goodness in the first place, and then using "inevitability" as a standard of betterness. Death is most inevitable yet is the "worst" thing for us. By saying death is both "better" and worse than life, you cause problems.
So, if you wish to revise your previous statements; why should we support progress? Because it increases goodness, correct? If so, you dismiss any opposition between progress and a virtuous telos. Good things are good; that is the ethical foundation of your political claim.
>>2903906motte bailey + goalpost shift
>>2904576- You're just playing word games. Breaking your nose is better than being subject to Scaphism, but neither is good.
- I have never trusted etymological games. Unless you're feeding programming languages to a computer, the meaning encoded in words exists as a social relationship between two human beings, not as a dictionary definition. "More good" and "less bad" may mean different things even if we know that, on a number line, they must tautologically be equivalent.
- You have me confused with someone else despite a particularly self-indulgent attempt to make clear precisely who I am. I have never once used "inevitability" as a standard of betterness, indeed, the China-v-India comparison in my spoiler and my earlier post (the one that annoyed calls-neoliberalism-anon-incentives-anon-even-though-that-was-a-different-anon-anon) makes sense only in a world where progress is very much evitable, where its opponents can-and-will succeed and subject us to scaphism.
Nevertheless, "good things are good" is a very good
haha basis on which to build one's politics. Far too many people get idle-hands syndrome and bring in the devil when they realise their byzantine fantasises will never be realised, and they come to believe that bad things are good and good things are bad, that we must suffer and suffer and suffer and suffer because they have to suffer not living in their imagined paradise. Nonsense.
>>2904610
>When you use the word "better" you mean "more good", don't you?
No. To reiterate the point the broken nose/Scaphism thing was supposed to illustrate:
"A broken nose is more good than being subject to scaphism" > ESL at best, clinically insane at worst.
"A broken nose is less bad than being subject to scaphism" > a little clunky, but very true!
Better functions as a comparator which can be used between two bad options. I then illustrate that this is a glass-half-full sort of thing, but that since language is social, there's nothing wrong with this.
>So this isn't you?
No, that is not me. I would emphasise historical progress as mostly consisting of "less bad" phenomena, and (as I've done at length) I would defend a distinction between "less bad" and "more good" even if - coming full circle - these are the same thing in an idealistic, mathematical sense. People immediately get the wrong idea if you refer to a less-bad as a more-good, with results which tend towards undermining the process of making things less bad.
>>2904619>No.So you use words incorrectly, then.
Please define what "better" means to you.
As an example, what makes something "better" or not?
>two bad optionsAnd a less bad thing is "more good" isn't it? That's what it means.
Bad is opposed to good, and so the increase of each is an inversion.
>I would emphasise historical progress as mostly consisting of "less bad" phenomenaRight, so you synonymise "progress" with what is more good.
>I would defend a distinction between "less bad" and "more good" even if - coming full circle - these are the same thingYou admit it, yet deny it. This is delusion; cognitive dissonance.
>>2904476>>2904536neither of these posts were advocating for the capitalist system, but rather they were explaining the differences between markets which have existed from ancient times and capitalist ideology. you cannot point to anywhere in the posts you quoted where it is said that capitalism is "fine" when limited to petty bourgeois operations.
as the above poster stated, learn to read and understand context.
>>2905202I maintain that referring to a bad thing as "more good" is a behaviour of the insane and the non native speaker. I am satisfied with my definition of better as a
comparative word.
You are attempting to strip useful nuance from language without really picking up any of the benefits that come with going all the way, programmer style.
I think the practical implications of my distinction may become clearer if we factor in the risk things don't go to plan. To aim for the least bad option is much more cautious than to aim for the most good one.
Not that I particularly care about the charge of cognitive dissonance. There are lots of true but ostensibly contradictory ideas out there, better to pick and choose the useful ones and accept the dissonance than to demand everything forms a totally coherent whole.
(This is after all what frees me to argue for elements of neoliberal ideas on /leftypol/ in their own terms, without also abandoning higher level Marxist principles, and without having to retreat for a decade to make sure all the edges are stitched together precisely. Better to be haphazardly correct than consistently wrong.)
>>2905276>To aim for the least bad option is much more cautious than to aim for the most good one. They are identical - you have literally admitted this yourself.
You would concur that "better" leads to "best", and that "best" is that which is most good, no? Even between two "bad" options, there is the better, and so the more good, by virtue of being less bad.
>true but ostensibly contradictory ideasSuch as?
>>2905276>This is after all what frees me to argue for elements of neoliberal ideas on /leftypol/ in their own terms, without also abandoning higher level Marxist the absolute state of leftypol, this what lack of moderation does to a place
>>2905217- Markets, although having existed for thousands of years, have not existed since the dawn of human society, and will certainly not exist in a communist mode of production.
- It doesn't really matter wether or not people follow a "capitalist ideology". Most people don't have a defined concieved ideology, they just respond to their material conditions, created by the base of a capitalist mode of production.
>you cannot point to anywhere in the posts you quoted where it is said that capitalism is "fine" when limited to petty bourgeois operations.Yes I can.
>go to any city, any town, any village, and you will find countless upon countless of examples of the petty bourgeois shopkeeper and proprietor who get along just fine. in fact, the only reason these places go out of business is because of the type of person who was described in that post you quoted, the capitalist who is ravenously hungryIs this bait or mental retardation?
>>2904605That was literally my only post in the thread but whatever
All systems are the same. They're cool in their prime, then they decay and later they become a demented old man that shits himself everywhere and makes a mess. But then a new thing comes.
>>2905404Just like any organic life
>>2905326God forbid people actually argue for novel positions instead of sitting around circlejerking about hohols are seething that Kiev will fall next week bringing forth true multipolarism
>>2905217what annoys me the most about these dumb "all material/labor exchange = capitalism" arguments is they just absolutely reek of privilege. only a coddled housecat could believe that it is possible to live in the world with other human beings without having to put a dollar in someone's pocket for their trouble. sharing is a two-way exchange, if you want an egalitarian society based on mutual aid then people have to be willing to give as much as they get, they have to work and do favors and give money or goods to others. you can't have a society where everyone is just taking and nobody is giving, which means you can't abolish markets and labor.
this kind of ignorance about the nature of human exchange and cooperation and antisocial magical thinking about technology eliminating any need for humans to work with each other or help each other is exactly where the whole "horseshoe theory" comes into focus and the irrational misguided would-be leftist starts to sound like an irrational misguided fascist. and it can only come from a privileged position, a person who has never experienced that critical milestone of emotional maturity where they went around bugging people to do things for them or give them things for free and someone called them out for being a selfish asshole and they realized they were an asshole and felt really bad and stopped doing it.
>>2905521Making goods in exchange for labor vouchers is not production for exchange because… it just isn't, okay?
>>2905657It's not production for exchange because the producer doesn't actually care whether the product they're making moves from the shelves. Its purpose is to satisfy a need, so if there's a surplus production simply winds down. Moreover nothing actually transfers from the consumer to the producer when the goods are distributed. When producing for exchange, the point isn't for somebody to use the thing but for them to buy it. Once they buy it it doesn't matter if they throw it right in the trash, and from the perspective of a capitalist producer this is actually the best thing they could do since it means they'd need to buy a new one.
>>2905521A lot of it is just historical illiteracy.
>>2905660>Production for exchangeExchange is just an indirect form of distribution.
For most things, it is actually most efficient.
Making voluntary trade illegal is highly inefficient.
>>2905668Nobody said voluntary trade should be illegal. But the means of production should be collectively owned, meaning such trade would necessarily be very limited.
>>2905660I work at a factory making goods. I receive labor vouchers. I go to the socialist store and give vouchers for different goods. I destroy some of the goods for a Youtube skit for epic clout. Problem?
>>2905721That's not production for exchange because exchange isn't the object of production, production is.
>>2905721The entire point is that the vouchers aren't actually exchanged (they're good boy points tied to you that get used up when you buy something, no one else actually receive them), so it can't be for exchange in this example
>>2905787More importantly the firm isn't producing goods with the aim of having a product to sell for a profit.
>>2905791I mean even if they wanted to sell it and make profits, they ultimately couldn't, it's taken care of by the lack of exchange currency
>>2905705Capital would accumulate in the hands of individuals from savings, leading to the development of private means of production - like computers or mobile phones, unless you regulated voluntary exchange.
>>2905791The raison d'etre of exchange is to sustain profits.
How else do you pay for overhead without a surplus?
>>2905969>savingsThat's why labor vouchers are supposed to come with at least a soft time limit where their value deprecate with time, and even then, you wouldn't receive any from the general public since they are assigned to you as an individual, so congrats, you bought 5 3d printers and now must scam people to give you stuff for what you make with them.
Also for surplus, it's "collected" before anything else, and you do receive less than you make (unfortunately until post scarcity, if it ever happens) in those vouchers, it is planned in advance, and the profits are a datapoint to be attributed later to reinvest in the global economy.
>>2905344>Markets, although having existed for thousands of years, have not existed since the dawn of human society, and will certainly not exist in a communist mode of production.nobody is saying they would exist under communism. you are arguing with phantoms.
>It doesn't really matter wether or not people follow a "capitalist ideology". Most people don't have a defined concieved ideology, they just respond to their material conditions, created by the base of a capitalist mode of production.again, completely irrelevant to the conversation
>Yes I can.<go to any city, any town, any village, and you will find countless upon countless of examples of the petty bourgeois shopkeeper and proprietor who get along just fine. in fact, the only reason these places go out of business is because of the type of person who was described in that post you quoted, the capitalist who is ravenously hungry>Is this bait or mental retardation?you seem to be unable to understand context. that post is not saying that capitalism or markets are good. you seem to have trouble understanding this. that post is explaining the differences between capitalism as it emerged in the modern era and markets which have existed since ancient times. this is a simple, basic explanation of the differences between terms.
>>2905984>labour vouchers depreciated by timeYes, that's entirely analogous to inflation, which we have now.
>assignedBy whom? The mythical whithered-away state?
>must scam peopleAnd presumably, it would be ILLEGAL to print your own currency, and therefore voluntary exchange would be a criminal offence, no? You can only shop at the government store, correct? It's a monopoly.
>you do receive less than you makeRight, so the government exploits workers for surplus.
Profits are good when the government does it?
>>2906004Capitalism does inevitably develop certain communistic tendencies within itself yes.
>>2905969>Capital would accumulate in the hands of individuals from savings, leading to the development of private means of production - like computers or mobile phones, unless you regulated voluntary exchange.Computers and mobile phones are not means of production, more like AI data centers. Computers and mobile phones are personal property owned by individuals. Why do anti-communists always come up with the stupidest examples to make their arguments?
>>2906157You literally use computers to produce things…
Is a hammer a means of production, even if personally possessed?
If I personally possess a hammer, wood and nails, do I personally possess means of production?
>>2905969>private means of production - like computers or mobile phonesHow many bushels of corn and tonnes of steel can you produce with a computer or mobile phone?
>>2906227Well if softwares are commodities, you can count computers as means of production.
>>2906227>computers or mobile phonesboth create personal data which is appropriated and sold on the market as profit
>>2906237Software isn't exactly a product in reality, or at least it wouldn't be under socialism. Software is just instructions that tell a computer how to do something, and ones the original code is created it can be copied endlessly, thousands of times in a minute.
>>2906240Wouldn't exist under socialism so it's a moot point.
>>2905668>A lot of it is just historical illiteracy.from what i see in this thread and others, it seems more like total illiteracy, where they can't consciously read things and intuit meaning and subtext, all they can do is scan and memorize and regurgitate certain bits of information that support their existing worldview. that and a deeply instilled sense of social nihilism where they believe that people are incapable of mutual exchange or cooperation without betraying and robbing and exploiting one another. in other words, victims of textbook authoritarian brainwashing. their brains are running an authoritarian operating system that is incompatible with non-authoritarian software.
>>2906296> from what i see in this thread and others, it seems more like total illiteracy, where they can't consciously read things and intuit meaning and subtextLook the elephant in the room is that imageboards attract edgelord kids, and edgelord kids in the 2020s are basically walking avatars of the literacy crisis
>>2906301i wouldn't even call them edgelord kids, nothing they say is shocking or outlandish, it's all very conventional whitebread status quo drivel. their conception of the radical leftist position is basically the same as that of any conservative republican or liberal/centrist democrat, i.e. marxist-leninist authoritarianism, only they are speaking in favor of it. mainstream western politics uses marxist-leninist authoritarianism as a bogeyman to scare people and herd them away from the left towards the right, and they are taking this at face value and simply identifying with the bogeyman. that's not edgy or radical or rebellious or subversive, that's just childish, that's like sniffing markers to rebel against a DARE poster.
>>2906244>Wouldn't exist under socialism so it's a moot point.of course it would. personal data is already a critical input in the industrial process, that's what gives it its value. in socialism one would be compensated for the personal data they passively generate in their day to day online interactions
>>2903846Sounds like:
>it's capitalism if the outcome is something bad>>2903834Communism is Advanced Feudalism.
Feudalism is actually good.
Did you try to answer from the view of mystification of labor?
So it goes: individual labor -> commodity on the market -> common labor. By exchanging things, thing1/thing2, etc, which is some_guy1/some_guy2. But also we find that it is not some_guy1, the individuality is lost, but hours1/hours2.
So what? It should, I think change the way you think, from just your head to all organs of manufacturing lol. It makes you think in common, not just from your individual view, which is a view in things/commodities.
Like in ecology, it goes from total emitted co2, to individual.
There is no ecology if you just look at it by yourself, when no totals.
Why will you not want to not know the totals, so to know from that, what you need to do, but also be able to do that?
>>2906362nope, capitalism is a specific and quite clearly defined economic model and you can look it up in the dictionary if you want.
in fact, if you really think about the actual definition of capitalism and go back and look at what OP said, that it was "nice only in the beginning", such a statement sounds even more absurd and downright monstrous considering that capitalism began in the 16th century when european empires used massive fleets of ships and the magnetic compass to build global maritime trade networks and invade and colonize africa and asia and the americas and steal their land and extract all their resources and enslave anyone who could be useful to them and exterminate anyone who wasn't. capitalism wasn't nice at all in the beginning, at best it was merely more honest, an army of redcoats is a bit more honest than an army of indigenous thugs secretly funded by a banana company.
>>2906477I agree with you, I just don't understand why that anon framed capitalism idealistically.
>>2906296Well, we are dealing with dogmatists. If you parse out their logic into contradiction, they want to shut you up, instead of changing their own mind.
>>2906237Products ≠ commodities
>>2906227A computer is just a portable factory of digital goods.
This sentence is a digital product.
>>2906244>A product is not a product, if (x) politicsPure ideology.
But let's set a different frame:
Are hammers, nails and wood means of production?
Will they be able to be personally possessed in your utopia,
or would you have to beg the state to rent them? If the accumulation of wealth allows personal purchasing of means of production, then means of production would not simply be "collectively owned".
Unique IPs: 48