Late-stage capitalism = abolition of private property

Post Reply New Topic

Let me explain how this works:

Socialism: Everything is owned by the citizens/workers.

Communism: Everything is owned by government oligarchs and the citizens own nothing.

Capitalism: Everything is owned by corporate oligarchs and the citizens own nothing.

Capitalism, by allowing companies to convert everything into subscription services, will effectively lead to the abolition of private property for everyone but the elites if we allow it to continue as it is. I'm not saying get rid of private enterprise. I'm saying we need more regulations, and we need to stop buying this mantra that any regulations whatsoever = communism. There's a lot more similarity between late-stage capitalism and communism than there is between socialism and communism. If you don't want de facto communism to be our future, advocate for economic regulations.

I am an ardent social democrat, and while I think American capitalism is seriously flawed, I think "capitalism with a human face" can work.

I don't think private property should be outlawed, but land should be better allocated to create large-scale public housing.

Doesn't exactly work that way. There was a time in the West (USA) where railroads did just that, but that time is gone. The only one doing that now is Musk with his planned corporate work camps cities.

The real problem with real estate unaffordability is renovators/flippers/investors who buy property NOT for the purpose of living there.

And anyone who isn't a senior AI engineer making $300,000+ is doomed to live in places like Mississippi or Arkansas or West Virginia.

Plenty of people who are not oligarchs own property in America. Most people who own private property in America are not oligarchs.

For now.

What EH is saying is that there's a steady erosion of people's ability to own things due to the growing trend of turning everything into a subscription (rent-seeking, effectively).

That slogan of you'll own nothing and be happy is the direction our neo-liberal/capitalism based economy is going in, rather than the consequence of anything that can fairly be described as socialism.

Currently that's true, but the general direction things have been going, for the past 50 years or so, has been toward more and more consolidation of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people/entities.

A similar consolidation trend happened in the late 1800's, but was broken up by popular outrage leading to various reforms intended to prevent, break up, and/or regulate monopolies, plus an income tax system designed to counter-balance the concentration of wealth. Further reforms, plus the beginnings of a social safety net, were introduced during the presidency of FDR.

Since then, conservatives have aimed to undo or de-fang as many of these reforms as they could, although these reforms have greatly benefited the vast majority of people. Ever since Reagan, the concentration of wealth has accelerated again.

Whatever happened to our old Anti Trust Laws ..? save the consumer ! bring back the anti trust laws...people really need this , i feel .

At some point we decided regulations were at odds with 'the free market' despite the reality that without regulations the free market won't remain free.

it will be required. it seems, that the Ogliarchs, want everyone to be servants, ( to them). When I grow up, I will be a subscription empire, Mogul . ......

some republicans are already talking amongst themselves about gun confiscation, I have heard. if this is true, that will be one less defense us citizens will have against the systematic robbing in store for us.

You have a very flawed perception of communism grounded in non-Marxist understanding. Socialism is where the means of production are owned indeed by the workers but also with the presence of a state (Dictatorship of the Proletariat), that is, the vanguard party state as per official, correct knowledge laid out in Marxism-Leninism. It is the capitalist socioeconomic order that is defined by oligarchy, not the socialist one.

Socialism as defined by Leninists is as you say, but since when did Leninists have the monopoly on defining socialism?

The moment their model was successful around the world. In Eastern Europe and Asia. Even Yugoslavia followed good old Lenin.

And this is pretty much the issue. Because socialism has largely fallen in Europe, this apparently meant that non-ML factions were now freely able to express their disgust at the most hardline anti-capitalist ideology in the entire history. They argue that the best model in these material conditions is either social democracy or a non-socialist "democratic socialism". Some revolutionaries have become more libertarian after the fall of socialism, which is indeed a proof of how capitalism won the Cold War.

There will never be a great socialism now that there are too many libertarians, anarchists, and other non-ML tendencies standing in the way with their united front ever more powerful to keep capitalism satisfied. But they'll say that socialism "harmed people". It didn't. The reason why they say it "did" was because the Marxist-Leninist model (ML) emphasized collective unity and disregarded petty individual issues. That presented an offense to the more individual "leftists" who thought that because MLs advocate for party vanguard to guide the unity, meant that they would no longer get to enjoy their liberties.

I'll be honest. True freedom is about one being able to eat food, drink water, live safely, have a family, and be able to work and get paid well. As well as not being discriminated for their career and living. Whatever petty issue one has, should not be up to the party to discuss, nor even think about promoting or bringing up to the party. And whatever decadent tendency one may have, should be controlled as much as possible to prevent harm on others as to prevent potential destabilization of socialism.

Regulation or no regulation. The market itself is a malevolent force that will inevitably lead to corporate monopoly. We need the most rigid means to displace away the market.