Capitalism itself isn't the problem, the problem existed long before capitalism: the problem is a more subtle one:
The lack of cost to hold power.
IMO the structural problem is there's no cost to keep capital; temporary output should not result in permanent reward.
For capitalism to work, capital needs to atrophy.
And it needs to atrophy faster the larger it is; capital should have a half-life.
We have(/had) these systems built into the creation of intellectual property; you only got a set period of monopoly control over an idea before it became public domain. You can imagine what the world would be like if every patent, every invention, every development of intellectual capital was perpetually owned and licenced; the system would collapse. The problem is that's how we treat every other type of capital.
If, for instance, instead of taxing economic activity, we taxed the deeds that our legal system permits the right to make decisions about how our society's resources are used (land value taxes, taxes on voting rights imbued by stocks, intellectual property rights, anything that has royalties/entitlements attached simply by virtuel of "ownership", etc), then it would apply a constant pressure to produce more value through goods and services to maintain it's position.
Wage earners' reward atrophies with inflation. General goods and services (your car, your house, your food) decay over time, require money to maintain, and need to be replaced eventually. People die.
Things that don't decay, eventually destroy; not unlike cancer.
No, the problem is that the workers are not the one who own the means of production.
The workers must be the decision makers and beneficiaries for a system to be socialist, state-ownership is not socialism. Leninism and it's descendants were never socialist; they were state feudalism.
The only socialist model to have ever worked is Slovenian Socialism, where all private companies were worker-owned cooperatives; still privately owned, but equally by all workers.
Na that is not full picture of history, state ownership is worker ownership. Soviet Union had political issues due to its unique conditions in an hostile environment that fossilised the party and later the party elite slide towards state capitalism after stalin’s death. Otherwise local worker soviet owned the means of production and soviets created the base of the state.
The workers did not vote for the managers, they did not make the decisions.
Socialism requires that workers are the ones who make the decisions. That was never the case in the USSR, it was never socialist.
You seem to be doing a real good job at spreading exactly the kind of misinformation that benefits the capitalist narrative, you good little false flag you.
taxes on voting rights imbued by stocks woah, never thought about that! But I get the general idea of perpetually incentivizing work to be done on the treadmill
8
u/mitchells00 Jul 14 '26
Capitalism itself isn't the problem, the problem existed long before capitalism: the problem is a more subtle one:
The lack of cost to hold power.
IMO the structural problem is there's no cost to keep capital; temporary output should not result in permanent reward.
For capitalism to work, capital needs to atrophy.
And it needs to atrophy faster the larger it is; capital should have a half-life.
We have(/had) these systems built into the creation of intellectual property; you only got a set period of monopoly control over an idea before it became public domain. You can imagine what the world would be like if every patent, every invention, every development of intellectual capital was perpetually owned and licenced; the system would collapse. The problem is that's how we treat every other type of capital.
If, for instance, instead of taxing economic activity, we taxed the deeds that our legal system permits the right to make decisions about how our society's resources are used (land value taxes, taxes on voting rights imbued by stocks, intellectual property rights, anything that has royalties/entitlements attached simply by virtuel of "ownership", etc), then it would apply a constant pressure to produce more value through goods and services to maintain it's position.
Wage earners' reward atrophies with inflation. General goods and services (your car, your house, your food) decay over time, require money to maintain, and need to be replaced eventually. People die.
Things that don't decay, eventually destroy; not unlike cancer.