People already organize in small and large groups, all around the world.
Yes, but you’re missing the point. Put such an organization of people in charge of a factory with equal (or equal-ish, you get the point) distribution of profits and they’ll pump out goods just fine, okay great. But do they have any incentive to take those profits and use them to build another factory? If not, then who builds the second factory? That is the crux of the issue here.
socialist, communist and anarchist movements have been violently destroyed because they developed too well.
Which ones? I’m not aware of a socialist society that survived long enough for such a statement to make sense, other than “socialist” USSR-style states which are… yeah no.
because for some reason iphones are better than nobody starving or being homeless.
Of course not, but the fact remains that you’ll be outcompeted by the people with iPhones. You deliberately used an example that society could live without, but what if instead of the iPhone we use, say, the cotton mill? The steam engine? Do you see the problem now? Put a state with one of these next to one without and there’s only one way for that to turn out.
Edit: I am not doing vanilla capitalist apologia here, so please save me the vanilla responses. I’m trying to make a very concrete point that you’re really not engaging with.
Listen, I get that you’re used to being among fellow systemists but this group is not that.
I’m not missing a point. If people need a second factory, they will build a second factory. YOU’re missing the point that people are perfectly able to do this on their own. Without a competitive incentive, helping others to make another factory becomes a nonissue.
Many. I’m not wikipedia. if you genuinely want to learn something, look at anarchist, communist and socialist communities on lemmy, maybe read on the anarchist faq or the other hundreds of places where alternative systems are taught. andrewism on youtube has some nice videos on the matter.
Again, capitalism is the only system that cares about competition. of course the person with the iphone is gonna outcompete the others. that IS THE POINT!
You’re absolutely doing capitalist apologia and I’m not only saving you the “vanilla responses” I’m saving myself any further of this stuff. Please stop arguing for arguments sake. This community is not for capitalists. if you want to learn, start asking informative questions or ask for books and other resources instead of trying to explain why capitalism is somehow the better system, which BY FAR it is not.
If people need a second factory, they will build a second factory.
Literally no. See: The massive swathes of the world where factories are needed and yet not built, so everyone is forced to pay through the nose for imported goods.
helping others to make another factory becomes a nonissue.
No? Labor is never a “nonissue”; it’s literally labor. Even in a communist utopia someone with a good product idea would need to provide something to get me to build a factory to manufacture that product. Capitalism has mechanisms (flawed as they are) for choosing good ideas and getting workers to pour their labor into materializing said good ideas. This is not something that can be taken for granted; the lack of such mechanisms is what killed places like the Ottoman Empire and Qing China.
Many. I’m not wikipedia. if you genuinely want to learn something, look at anarchist, communist and socialist communities on lemmy, maybe read on the anarchist faq or the other hundreds of places where alternative systems are taught. andrewism on youtube has some nice videos on the matter.
So basically “read theory”. If there are many examples, then it shouldn’t be difficult to provide even one.
Again, capitalism is the only system that cares about competition. of course the person with the iphone is gonna outcompete the others. that IS THE POINT!
The heck? Societies have competed with each other economically, politically and militarily for as long as societies existed, and guess what? Having worse means of production makes a society weaker on all three fronts, and therefore more liable to be pushed around, defeated militarily or colonized. This isn’t rocket science; this is literally the lived reality of half the world. Advanced means of production enable a society to dominate societies with less advanced means of production; that’s how European colonialism happened, and it’s why the West and China are the top dogs of the modern world order. You cannot just handwave advancing the means of production as something that is unnecessary or will take care of itself and expect to be taken seriously. I’m not even batting for capitalism here; screw capitalism, but whatever alternative will take its place needs to satisfy certain conditions to not be colonized by the capitalist world order. If your communist utopia can’t develop new technologies and turn them into real economic activity on the ground at the same pace as a capitalist economy, capitalists will collapse the whole thing faster than you can say bourgeoisie. Arguments against capitalist innovation/“innovation” usually address the former, but I have never seen the latter addressed. If you have a response to that other than “read theory” then be my guest, otherwise I hope you notice you’re not providing anything of value to this conversation.
Yes, but you’re missing the point. Put such an organization of people in charge of a factory with equal (or equal-ish, you get the point) distribution of profits and they’ll pump out goods just fine, okay great. But do they have any incentive to take those profits and use them to build another factory? If not, then who builds the second factory? That is the crux of the issue here.
Which ones? I’m not aware of a socialist society that survived long enough for such a statement to make sense, other than “socialist” USSR-style states which are… yeah no.
Of course not, but the fact remains that you’ll be outcompeted by the people with iPhones. You deliberately used an example that society could live without, but what if instead of the iPhone we use, say, the cotton mill? The steam engine? Do you see the problem now? Put a state with one of these next to one without and there’s only one way for that to turn out.
Edit: I am not doing vanilla capitalist apologia here, so please save me the vanilla responses. I’m trying to make a very concrete point that you’re really not engaging with.
Listen, I get that you’re used to being among fellow systemists but this group is not that.
I’m not missing a point. If people need a second factory, they will build a second factory. YOU’re missing the point that people are perfectly able to do this on their own. Without a competitive incentive, helping others to make another factory becomes a nonissue.
Many. I’m not wikipedia. if you genuinely want to learn something, look at anarchist, communist and socialist communities on lemmy, maybe read on the anarchist faq or the other hundreds of places where alternative systems are taught. andrewism on youtube has some nice videos on the matter.
Again, capitalism is the only system that cares about competition. of course the person with the iphone is gonna outcompete the others. that IS THE POINT!
You’re absolutely doing capitalist apologia and I’m not only saving you the “vanilla responses” I’m saving myself any further of this stuff. Please stop arguing for arguments sake. This community is not for capitalists. if you want to learn, start asking informative questions or ask for books and other resources instead of trying to explain why capitalism is somehow the better system, which BY FAR it is not.
Literally no. See: The massive swathes of the world where factories are needed and yet not built, so everyone is forced to pay through the nose for imported goods.
No? Labor is never a “nonissue”; it’s literally labor. Even in a communist utopia someone with a good product idea would need to provide something to get me to build a factory to manufacture that product. Capitalism has mechanisms (flawed as they are) for choosing good ideas and getting workers to pour their labor into materializing said good ideas. This is not something that can be taken for granted; the lack of such mechanisms is what killed places like the Ottoman Empire and Qing China.
So basically “read theory”. If there are many examples, then it shouldn’t be difficult to provide even one.
The heck? Societies have competed with each other economically, politically and militarily for as long as societies existed, and guess what? Having worse means of production makes a society weaker on all three fronts, and therefore more liable to be pushed around, defeated militarily or colonized. This isn’t rocket science; this is literally the lived reality of half the world. Advanced means of production enable a society to dominate societies with less advanced means of production; that’s how European colonialism happened, and it’s why the West and China are the top dogs of the modern world order. You cannot just handwave advancing the means of production as something that is unnecessary or will take care of itself and expect to be taken seriously. I’m not even batting for capitalism here; screw capitalism, but whatever alternative will take its place needs to satisfy certain conditions to not be colonized by the capitalist world order. If your communist utopia can’t develop new technologies and turn them into real economic activity on the ground at the same pace as a capitalist economy, capitalists will collapse the whole thing faster than you can say bourgeoisie. Arguments against capitalist innovation/“innovation” usually address the former, but I have never seen the latter addressed. If you have a response to that other than “read theory” then be my guest, otherwise I hope you notice you’re not providing anything of value to this conversation.
As I already told you, capitalist apologism is not valued here. This conversation is over. Good luck pushing your ideology somewhere else.