@neonsnake @whatzaname @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern Capitalism is that economic system which holds that individuals have the right to own their own property and labor and that they have the right to exchange what they own freely and voluntarily with others.
Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 24-Dec-2023 09:04:44 JST 
AKingsbury
-
Embed this notice
HeavenlyPossum (heavenlypossum@kolektiva.social)'s status on Sunday, 24-Dec-2023 09:04:40 JST 
HeavenlyPossum
@neonsnake @AlexanderKingsbury @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @whatzaname
Capitalism has never existed and cannot exist without the state and its violence.
-
Embed this notice
gnutelephony (gnutelephony@floss.social)'s status on Sunday, 24-Dec-2023 09:04:40 JST 
gnutelephony
@HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @AlexanderKingsbury @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @whatzaname the invisible hand requires an iron gauntlet.
-
Embed this notice
RD (rd4anarchy@kolektiva.social)'s status on Sunday, 24-Dec-2023 09:04:42 JST 
RD
@AlexanderKingsbury @neonsnake @whatzaname @gerrymcgovern
>>Part of that is owning property you don't occupy or use. Part of ownership of something is excluding others from using it if they don't satisfy your demands for using it.<<
Yes, this is a key distinction of capitalism and why it is not some "natural" default.
This key characteristic disproves your assertion that capitalism can exist without state.
There has never been, and cannot be, capitalism without state.
-
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 24-Dec-2023 09:04:42 JST
AKingsbury
@RD4Anarchy @neonsnake @whatzaname @gerrymcgovern Capitalism can exist without a state; it merely requires that people respect the rights of others. Now, in practice, that does require an enforcement mechanism, because not everyone respects the rights of others. But the fact that that enforcement mechanism is usually the state doesn't mean it must be.
-
Embed this notice
NeonSnake (neonsnake@kolektiva.social)'s status on Sunday, 24-Dec-2023 09:04:43 JST 
NeonSnake
@AlexanderKingsbury @whatzaname @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern so, not quite.
Capitalism is an economic system which is based on the right to own property that you don't occupy or use yourself, and then exclude others from using it, unless they work for you.
-
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 24-Dec-2023 09:04:43 JST
AKingsbury
@neonsnake @whatzaname @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern That is part of it; you can own property and your own labor. Part of that is owning property you don't occupy or use. Part of ownership of something is excluding others from using it if they don't satisfy your demands for using it.
-
Embed this notice
gnutelephony (gnutelephony@floss.social)'s status on Sunday, 24-Dec-2023 09:16:19 JST
gnutelephony
@HeavenlyPossum @whatzaname @AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern @neonsnake indeed, the only genuine free markets you find today are found either in free software or where indigenous peoples still thrive.
-
Embed this notice
HeavenlyPossum (heavenlypossum@kolektiva.social)'s status on Sunday, 24-Dec-2023 09:16:21 JST
HeavenlyPossum
@whatzaname @AlexanderKingsbury @gnutelephony @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern @neonsnake
The fundamental and irresolvable tension in capitalism as an *idea* is that private ownership of the means of production a) is the product of violence and b) precludes voluntary exchange. They are irreconcilable. You can have a private property regime or you can have free trade, but you can’t have both together.
If they’re ever faced with a choice between the two, capitalists will always choose property over free markets, and whenever possible, capitalists will work to undermine free markets.
Competition? The risk of failure? Capitalists hate those!
-
Embed this notice
gnutelephony (gnutelephony@floss.social)'s status on Sunday, 24-Dec-2023 09:25:59 JST
gnutelephony
@whatzaname @HeavenlyPossum @AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern @neonsnake absolutely. I was simply affirming that indeed capitalism and genuine free markets really are irreconcilable. In fact, this observation was actually first made to me by Russell Means some 2 decades ago.
-
Embed this notice
molly in missouri (whatzaname@kolektiva.social)'s status on Sunday, 24-Dec-2023 09:26:00 JST 
molly in missouri
@gnutelephony but elements of it exist almost everywhere. And we can learn from each other. Modify to fit the location. I have every confidence we *can* have free markets and the end of states, and have far better, healthier, safer lives.
@HeavenlyPossum @AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern @neonsnake -
Embed this notice
gnutelephony (gnutelephony@floss.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:01:59 JST
gnutelephony
@neonsnake @AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy @Radical_EgoCom @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @whatzaname indeed, Adam Smith's wealth of nations actually speaks of "free enterprise", or greed unchained by social conventions, guilds, or government restraint, while cheekily asserting governments purpose is really to serve and further such greed, too. The collective end-product of capitalist's "enlightened greed" has been mass human misery.
-
Embed this notice
NeonSnake (neonsnake@kolektiva.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:02:00 JST
NeonSnake
@AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy @Radical_EgoCom @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @gnutelephony @whatzaname
No, you're confusing "free markets" with "capitalism", and then deciding that all of the aspects of "capitalism" that you don't like (ie. the ones enforced by the state that tilt scales in favour of capitalists) are "cronyism".
It's easily done and extremely understandable - we've all been taught that "capitalism is nothing more than free markets" by our school systems, thought-tanks and media, but it simply isn't true.
I've nothing (and I 100% mean this) against people who believe this when they haven't been made aware of how governments tilt the scales; but once you've had it explained to you, it becomes a little more problematic to believe that "capitalism=free markets" is a belief held in good faith.
Instead, it begins to look like "I'm not in favour of government interference that doesn't benefit the capitalist - like minimum wage laws - but I'm favour of government interference that *does* benefit the capitalist - like Enclosures"
Which one are you? A genuine free-marketeer? Or someone who is in favour of government interference in free-markets when it suits you?
-
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:02:01 JST
AKingsbury
@RD4Anarchy @Radical_EgoCom @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @gnutelephony @whatzaname You're confusing cronyism with capitalism.
-
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:02:02 JST
AKingsbury
@Radical_EgoCom @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname I don't claim to disprove anything; only to assert that involuntary transactions are contrary to capitalism.
-
Embed this notice
RD (rd4anarchy@kolektiva.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:02:02 JST
RD
@AlexanderKingsbury @Radical_EgoCom @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @gnutelephony @whatzaname
Your assertion has been disproved, starting with Enclosure, and everything that followed.
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:02:03 JST 
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@AlexanderKingsbury @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname
You haven't disproven that capitalism operates under involuntary conditions, you've only exclaimed that the rest of the world also operates that way, which isn't a defense, only a mentioning of irrelevant information. -
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:02:04 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@AlexanderKingsbury @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname
The apparent "voluntariness" of exchanges in capitalism is compromised by systemic inequalities and power imbalances. Capitalism inherently concentrates wealth and resources in the hands of a few, limiting true freedom of choice for the majority. Voluntary exchange is only possible in a society without such hierarchical structures, with equality in resources and decision-making -
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:02:04 JST
AKingsbury
@Radical_EgoCom @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname Common claims. Choices are usually made between people in unequal situations; sorry about reality.
-
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:02:05 JST
AKingsbury
@ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname The capitalist's primary source of profit is voluntary exchange as a result of improving the lot of life of the ordinary person. Hate that all you want.
-
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:02:06 JST
AKingsbury
@HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname
EVERYONE dislikes competition for their endeavors; capitalists recognize that competition in every endeavor, even their own, breeds excellence.
Ideologically, sure. Practically, also sure, IF people aren't too weak to avoid cronyism.
Again, yes. You can CLAIM I have it backwards, but I don't. Violence in the past does not make all future action violent. And I "agreed" to no such thing with your absurd hyoperbole.
-
Embed this notice
Ciggy Bringer of Smoke (ciggysmokebringer@kolektiva.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:02:06 JST 
Ciggy Bringer of Smoke
@AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname
You say all this shit like rent seeking isn't the Capitalist's primary gravy train. Get lost.
-
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:02:07 JST
AKingsbury
@HeavenlyPossum @whatzaname @gnutelephony @RD4Anarchy @gerrymcgovern @neonsnake Nonsense.
Capitalists love competition and the risk of failure; those breed excellence.
Capitalism doesn't preclude voluntary exchange; indeed, that's the ONLY form of exchange allowed under capitalism.
You can ONLY have free markets with private property.
-
Embed this notice
HeavenlyPossum (heavenlypossum@kolektiva.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:02:07 JST
HeavenlyPossum
@neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @AlexanderKingsbury @whatzaname
> “Capitalists love competition and the risk of failure; those breed excellence.”
Capitalists hate competition and the risk of failure because these are costly and injurious. This is why capitalists go to such incredible lengths to block competition. They form cartels; they communicate surreptitiously with each other to set prices; they lobby the state to subsidize them and create barriers to market entry; etc etc etc.
> “Capitalism doesn't preclude voluntary exchange; indeed, that's the ONLY form of exchange allowed under capitalism.”
Ideologically, sure. Practically, no.
> “You can ONLY have free markets with private property.”
Again, no. You have it precisely backwards: all extant private property originated in violent (state) expropriation and, once in place, precludes voluntary agreement by non-owners who must gain permission from property owners to be alive, as you agreed with our island thought experiment.
-
Embed this notice
NeonSnake (neonsnake@kolektiva.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:10:31 JST
NeonSnake
@HeavenlyPossum @whatzaname @Radical_EgoCom @AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy @ciggysmokebringer @gerrymcgovern @gnutelephony
"capitalism tolerates some limited and deeply constrained economic exchange as long as it does not threaten the privilege and power of private property owners"
The casinos of Las Vegas wouldn't survive either if some people weren't allowed to win.
The possibility *has* to exist, otherwise we'd revolt immediately.
But it *cannot* exist for everyone - the scales must be tipped in favour of the people who own the casino.
-
Embed this notice
gnutelephony (gnutelephony@floss.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:10:31 JST
gnutelephony
@neonsnake @HeavenlyPossum @whatzaname @Radical_EgoCom @AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy @ciggysmokebringer @gerrymcgovern ownership is simply a commodity, and can be accumulated in ever fewer hands. The outcome of capitalism, like the state does for political power, is often greater centralization of economic power.
-
Embed this notice
HeavenlyPossum (heavenlypossum@kolektiva.social)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 21:10:32 JST
HeavenlyPossum
@whatzaname @neonsnake @Radical_EgoCom @AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy @ciggysmokebringer @gerrymcgovern @gnutelephony
Capitalism can never fail; it can only *be failed.* We apply the simple rules of capitalism and discover all sorts of bad effects. We don’t conclude there’s something wrong with those rules or our assumptions about them. No, we must infer some *extraneous* problem intruding on capitalism’s perfection.
The reality remains that private property is incompatible with economic freedom, and that capitalism tolerates some limited and deeply constrained economic exchange as long as it does not threaten the privilege and power of private property owners.
-
Embed this notice
gnutelephony (gnutelephony@floss.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:43:23 JST
gnutelephony
@RD4Anarchy @AlexanderKingsbury @Radical_EgoCom @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @whatzaname this is actually not correct. At least the idea of contract-based societies had been practiced, for centuries, in Medieval Europe. Serfs were bound to manors by "contracts" alone. Of course, the power imbalance made this irrelevant, as we all have seen how that actually worked out. It was "collective bargaining", thru the gun, that finally changed this state of affairs.
-
Embed this notice
RD (rd4anarchy@kolektiva.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:43:24 JST
RD
@AlexanderKingsbury @Radical_EgoCom @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @gnutelephony @whatzaname
So it arises naturally from human nature? How do you propose to change that?
Also, I'm wondering where this perfect ancap vision of capitalism came from since it has never existed in the real world 🤷♂️
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:43:25 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @gnutelephony @whatzaname
Cronyism and capitalism are intertwined. In a capitalist system, wealth accumulation leads to unequal power dynamics. This concentration of economic power creates opportunities for cronyism, where businesses and political elites collaborate for mutual benefit, undermining the ideal competition that capitalism claims to create, but clearly doesn't. -
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:43:25 JST
AKingsbury
@Radical_EgoCom @RD4Anarchy @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @gnutelephony @whatzaname Capitalism and cronyism CAN be intertwined, if the people allow it.
-
Embed this notice
gnutelephony (gnutelephony@floss.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:58:17 JST
gnutelephony
@AlexanderKingsbury @Psybernetic @neonsnake @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @whatzaname does it, though? Past evidence suggests otherwise, particularly in respect to war production during ww2. And what about when there is abundance rather than scarcity? Ownership creates artificial scarcity thru artificial forms of property in it's place.
-
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:58:18 JST
AKingsbury
@Psybernetic @neonsnake @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname Capitalism, like all other economic systems; has one goal; find the best way to distribute scarce resources. Capitalism does not direct anyone to pursue profit. Many people CHOOSE to do so, but that is not a requirement.
If you really don't think competition encourages excellence, go ahead and find me the fastest person you can who isn't competitive. Or the strongest.
-
Embed this notice
STⒶRFLEET (psybernetic@kolektiva.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:58:22 JST 
STⒶRFLEET
@AlexanderKingsbury @neonsnake @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname
Semantics. Competition doesn't engender excellence. More often than not it forms perverse incentives. Sears wasn't outcompeted by other similar businesses. It was sabotaged by a market ideologue who introduced competition into the internal workings of the organization. Previously friendly sections of the stores turned on each other. Professional athletes turn to harmful drugs to increase their performance and therefore income.
The goal of capitalism isn't to make the best products or provide the best services. It's to make the most profits. The methods for doing so are varied, yet it always boils down to profits and and finding the floor at which people will grumble without revolting. Competition in socioeconomy is a race to the bottom.
-
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:58:23 JST
AKingsbury
@Psybernetic @neonsnake @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname I never said competition ALWAYS produces the best results. Anything can be done poorly. I said competition breeds excellence; just look at, for example, professional sports. Even Sears; competition in the market spoke and, as a result, they lost most of their market share. Better companies took their place.
-
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:58:24 JST
AKingsbury
@Psybernetic @neonsnake @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname Competition MAY be concurrent with hostility; it doesn't need to be. It's easy to want to be protected; that's not unique to those cronyists who seek it. Look at yourself; you reject competition; is that not a call to be protected from it?
You keep gesturing at Sears, as if it's some ironclad example that competition is evil. Can you manage to give any example of where competition has had good results?
-
Embed this notice
STⒶRFLEET (psybernetic@kolektiva.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:58:24 JST
STⒶRFLEET
@AlexanderKingsbury @neonsnake @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname
No. Competition on any economic or societal level is damaging over time. Even meaningless "friendly" competitions are prone to fostering hostility. Competition creates an "other," which at its worst devolves into genocidal behavior, at its best into domineering hierarchies. Opposition to competition in favor of cooperation isn't seeking protection, it's pursuing liberation.
I pointed to Sears specifically because it refuted your claim that competition always produces the best results. There are other examples, but Sears is the clearest and most obvious.
-
Embed this notice
STⒶRFLEET (psybernetic@kolektiva.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:58:25 JST
STⒶRFLEET
@neonsnake @AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname
"Genuine competition" is better handled as a collaborative effort with the benefit of all as the goal. Competition breeds protectionism. Competing governments, businesses, even toxic family members seek to win at the expense of others. Competition is hostility. Its end is ruthless efficency, not greatest benefit.Sears was operating on the assumption that internal competition would cause the creme to rise to the top. It didn't. Departments fought for resources, cooked their books, bought the cheapest goods they could to sell and it caused one of the biggest and oldest retailers in the US to spectacularly implode. It exacerbated the already tenuous position department stores have been in since the advent of online shopping.
-
Embed this notice
STⒶRFLEET (psybernetic@kolektiva.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:58:26 JST
STⒶRFLEET
@neonsnake @AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname I suppose you could look at it that way, although Sears is more an example of how competition rotted an otherwise successful business from within. An organization divided against itself will fail, and can be extrapolated to class society as a whole.
-
Embed this notice
NeonSnake (neonsnake@kolektiva.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:58:26 JST
NeonSnake
@Psybernetic @AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname
Then it was a business that didn't deserve to exist, and was operating on the assumption that no-one would ever compete against - internally or externally.
There's plenty of examples of both, which generates *actual* innovation, rather than protectionism against genuine competition.
-
Embed this notice
STⒶRFLEET (psybernetic@kolektiva.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:58:27 JST
STⒶRFLEET
@AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname hold up, a case study in how this claim is false is Sears. Sears brought in an executive who believes this absurd idea that competition always produces the best results and incorporated it into the internal structure of the company. Departments within a single store now had to compete with each other.
Where is Sears now? Gone. Cooperation and collaboration produce much better results.
-
Embed this notice
NeonSnake (neonsnake@kolektiva.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:58:27 JST
NeonSnake
@Psybernetic @AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname So, competition destroyed a potential monopoly, you say?
-
Embed this notice
RD (rd4anarchy@kolektiva.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:59:46 JST
RD
@AlexanderKingsbury @Radical_EgoCom @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @gnutelephony @whatzaname
>>And there's not really a more effective way to concentrate power than to collectivize things by law; someone still has to be in charge.<<
Most of the folks you've been conversing with here have no desire or intention at all to "collectivize things by law". Anarchists are opposed to state and rule of law.
>>Private ownership of the means of production ALLOWS for such concentrations, but does not demand it.<<
Allowing it is all it takes actually, it doesn't have to demand it. But the competitive nature of capitalism (which is actually a competition to transcend competition) does demand it.
-
Embed this notice
gnutelephony (gnutelephony@floss.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:59:46 JST
gnutelephony
@RD4Anarchy @AlexanderKingsbury @Radical_EgoCom @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @whatzaname the only coercive violence I encounter is the violence of private property and artificial scarcity being imposed.
-
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:59:48 JST
AKingsbury
@Radical_EgoCom @RD4Anarchy @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @gnutelephony @whatzaname "the concentration of power originating from private ownership of the means of production". That doesn't follow at all. Private ownership of the means of production ALLOWS for such concentrations, but does not demand it. And there's not really a more effective way to concentrate power than to collectivize things by law; someone still has to be in charge.
-
Embed this notice
AKingsbury (alexanderkingsbury@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:59:50 JST
AKingsbury
@Radical_EgoCom @RD4Anarchy @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @gnutelephony @whatzaname Cronyism is what allows those concentrations of power. Monopolies, for example, are nearly always created and sustained through cronyism. If competition is allowed, monopolies rarely stand for any real length of time.
-
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:59:50 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @gnutelephony @whatzaname
Cronyism is inherently linked to Capitalism due to the concentration of power originating from private ownership of the means of production. If the means of production were collectively owned there would be no incentive for individuals or corporations to engage in cronyism to create and sustain monopolies. -
Embed this notice
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 01:59:51 JST
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
@AlexanderKingsbury @RD4Anarchy @ciggysmokebringer @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake @gerrymcgovern @gnutelephony @whatzaname
Cronyism and capitalism are destined to be intertwined because capitalism inherently creates power imbalances and concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. As wealth accumulates, those with economic power influence political processes to protect their interests, leading to a system where government and business become closely connected. -
Embed this notice
STⒶRFLEET (psybernetic@kolektiva.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 16:51:53 JST
STⒶRFLEET
@neonsnake @AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname that's more collaborative than competitive, yeah? You're working together toward a common goal and seeing what works best rather than trying to be the last one standing. An employer I once had would set offices against each other, then have them cooperate, and alternate between the two every few years as the presidents changed. Fucked with our heads a lot and made it hard to work with some offices that never got out of the competitive mindset.
-
Embed this notice
NeonSnake (neonsnake@kolektiva.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 16:51:53 JST
NeonSnake
@Psybernetic @AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname
Yeah, it's one of those things where we're so conditioned by the current order, that when we hear "competition", we immediately think of it as a zero-sum game with winners and losers, rather than something that can lead to beneficial outcomes for all.
Like, as long as it's framed correctly, the "loser" as such learns just as much as the "winner", and the time/energy/resources spent on the "losing" (or, to be more accurate, "less successful experiment) effort was worth spending.
-
Embed this notice
gnutelephony (gnutelephony@floss.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 16:51:53 JST
gnutelephony
@neonsnake @Psybernetic @AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @whatzaname Russell Means once said "Indians don't compete", and this actually touches very closely on how he meant it.
-
Embed this notice
NeonSnake (neonsnake@kolektiva.social)'s status on Thursday, 28-Dec-2023 16:51:55 JST
NeonSnake
@Psybernetic @AlexanderKingsbury @HeavenlyPossum @gerrymcgovern @RD4Anarchy @gnutelephony @whatzaname
Yeah, conceded.
Cooking the books etc wasn't at all what I had in mind.
(I sometimes used to encourage my staff to each try different initiatives, and whichever one did the best ended up being the one we put resources/time into. It wasn't a "cut-throat" style of thing, though)
-
Embed this notice
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the