Workers can prefer to live in a capitalist society if they end up with owning more, or just hope so. So they can be capitalist despite not owning capital. Of course that ignores the distinction between the role as capitalist and the believe.
In general, people don’t value being in control. If they would, people would have moved to Lemmy.
There is still the opportunity that those who care actively push Lemmy beyond its natural growth to make it competitive with Reddit. But at what cost? Then people would choose Lemmy, but not by conviction.
Similarly, people could stop being capitalists by being able to work in a country with a better offer. But that wouldn’t make them anti-capitalist.
You’re confusing capitalists, ie capital owners, with liberals, those who are pro-capitalism. As for Lemmy, its growth is tied to recognition and Reddit’s decay, the established community on Reddit is itself the draw.
There are blurred lines when it comes to the edges of class, but capitalists as a class are those that essentially make their profits by purchasing labor and raw materials, and selling the products of that labor and raw material in a market.
I would say only a subset of liberals accept raw Capitalism. Liberals need free markets which is a contradiction with Capitalism.
To have less capitalistic structures, people would have to support something with no immedite benefits. Just waiting for Capitalism’s decline is like waiting for Reddit’s decline. It’s always there but never so much that the majority switches. Something is missing that people act on their own.
monopolies are a feature of capitalism and liberalism is defined by its regulation of capitalism; meaning that it’s a part of capitalism too just like conservatism, imperialism, colonialism, and fascism are as well.
Liberalism is the ideological aspect of capitalism. “Raw capitalism” doesn’r really mean anything.
To move onto socialism, we need to overthrow the state, replace it with a socialist one, and establish public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Countries like China, Vietnam, and Cuba have already done this, as did the former USSR.
Capitalism with monopoly is still capitalism, Liberalism being a failed ideology does not mean it ceases to be Liberalism as it fails. There’s absolutely a we within capitalism, the working classes are a we.
What do you mean “power accumulating?” This sounds like you’re talking about magic or something. Capitalists use capital for their plunder, I don’t see what you mean by linking that to socialism. As for the working class “we,” are you asking why we aren’t organized? That takes time and effort.
People in power tend to grab more power. Like Capitalism would be acceptable if there was a progressive tax on capital. But those with much capital would collude to undermine it. Likewise socialism could also decay if the people in power would use the power to their advantage. How is that mitigated?
“we,” are you asking why we aren’t organized?
Not exactly. I think that there is no ‘we’ among the working class which prevents the organizing.
Workers can prefer to live in a capitalist society if they end up with owning more, or just hope so. So they can be capitalist despite not owning capital. Of course that ignores the distinction between the role as capitalist and the believe.
In general, people don’t value being in control. If they would, people would have moved to Lemmy.
There is still the opportunity that those who care actively push Lemmy beyond its natural growth to make it competitive with Reddit. But at what cost? Then people would choose Lemmy, but not by conviction.
Similarly, people could stop being capitalists by being able to work in a country with a better offer. But that wouldn’t make them anti-capitalist.
You’re confusing capitalists, ie capital owners, with liberals, those who are pro-capitalism. As for Lemmy, its growth is tied to recognition and Reddit’s decay, the established community on Reddit is itself the draw.
what’s the cutoff between capital owners and regular rich assholes, it a certain $ amount or is just as soon as your the one paying people?
There are blurred lines when it comes to the edges of class, but capitalists as a class are those that essentially make their profits by purchasing labor and raw materials, and selling the products of that labor and raw material in a market.
I would say only a subset of liberals accept raw Capitalism. Liberals need free markets which is a contradiction with Capitalism.
To have less capitalistic structures, people would have to support something with no immedite benefits. Just waiting for Capitalism’s decline is like waiting for Reddit’s decline. It’s always there but never so much that the majority switches. Something is missing that people act on their own.
What makes you talk so confidently about things you clearly don’t know the first thing about?
Obviously the lack of knowledge. I don’t know better. What do you think is wrong?
liberalism is defined by its adherence to capitalism; if you’re not a capitalist, then you’re also not a liberal.
Liberalism requires individual freedom, including free markets. Capitalism ends with monopolies that destroy free markets.
It is not the same. Liberal societies must want regulated markets.
monopolies are a feature of capitalism and liberalism is defined by its regulation of capitalism; meaning that it’s a part of capitalism too just like conservatism, imperialism, colonialism, and fascism are as well.
Liberalism is the ideological aspect of capitalism. “Raw capitalism” doesn’r really mean anything.
To move onto socialism, we need to overthrow the state, replace it with a socialist one, and establish public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Countries like China, Vietnam, and Cuba have already done this, as did the former USSR.
For liberalism, see sibling comment.
Capitalism is making sure that there is not much of a we.
Capitalism with monopoly is still capitalism, Liberalism being a failed ideology does not mean it ceases to be Liberalism as it fails. There’s absolutely a we within capitalism, the working classes are a we.
How would socialism prevent power from accumulating? Liberals could probably do the same with capital.
There should be a working class we in capitalism but I don’t see it. Why do you think that it exists and that it is not dispersed?
What do you mean “power accumulating?” This sounds like you’re talking about magic or something. Capitalists use capital for their plunder, I don’t see what you mean by linking that to socialism. As for the working class “we,” are you asking why we aren’t organized? That takes time and effort.
People in power tend to grab more power. Like Capitalism would be acceptable if there was a progressive tax on capital. But those with much capital would collude to undermine it. Likewise socialism could also decay if the people in power would use the power to their advantage. How is that mitigated?
Not exactly. I think that there is no ‘we’ among the working class which prevents the organizing.