Blivit

This is quite mean tbh

Apparently it was accident, so ig they just can’t read lol

Socialist repeatedly misgenders me after admitting to reading my bio, which has she/her pronouns in it.

How quickly cis socialists drop the pretence of trans acceptance when the trans person isn’t a socialist

i’m not male

my bio also has my pronouns in it dipshit

The state

Capital from investment, land from land deeds, with its value from either the value of surrounding land and capital or the value of natural resources. Sure, if you gain enough wealth to invest by renting out, your investment isn’t legitimate, which is why lvt is needed for capitalism to be viable.

:( that’s really rude

no

Because land, labour and capital are all factors in value creation, and capitalist businesses need both labour and capital to function. When striking, can workers from a monopoly (or oligopoly) together, but an individual worker basically faces a prisoner’s dilemma

Because capitalism doesn’t exploit labour, the reason owners get more from the exchange is because they have more to bargain with, ie their land and capital. The capital they own would not exist without their investments, so trying to redistribute it won’t do anything useful, but the land would.

🤦‍♀️

I think private capital ownership in the abstract sense could serve to improve the future society should build, not as a continuation of what we have today, but as a deliberate choice in how to build a society we can all prosper in.

I agree.

The core of exclusive land ownership is exploitation, the core of capitalism is investment

Yeah.

Luckily we both oppose such a system.

How are anti-capitalists any different? “We aren’t living in socialism, therefore it cannot exist” is the exact same logic. Whatever you propose as an alternative to capitalism is an alternate reality where things are different.

Proving my point.

I don’t support unregulated rentier-capitalism where externalities aren’t taxed

The reason I didn’t accept capitalism before was because I thought it inherently created suffering and poverty because the means of production were monopolised, except I didn’t consider the fact that land is the only component of the MoP that’s actually limited.

Of course a socialist can’t conceive of someone being as progressive as them and also rejecting anti capitalism

A question I would ask socialists, but it’s so essential to socialism that it’s not really worth asking.

Oh no, it’s perfectly possible for a reasonable person to come to the conclusion that a non capitalist alternative is preferable, I myself did for a long while, and I have many friends who do, what i’m opposed to is not considering either types of possible future.

… show what non capitalist system they think would be a better alternative, which nobody else has been doing, so I felt it was unnecessary for me to elaborate.

Well so far i’ve been defending the idea that you shouldn’t shut off the possibility of capitalist futures being positive ones, but it’ll take me a few more words to give an argument as to why the system we should be pursuing includes capitalism, though equally those who oppose capitalism must…

I suppose for someone who’s shut so many mental doors, it must seem so

because private ownership of capital is not the source of society’s ills.

Land is finite by definition, which is why I don’t support private profit from land ownership. Capital, in contrast to land, is improvements we make to land (our material world) and is therefore infinite, because it’s not a resource. By sharing profit from land ownership, you can eliminate poverty.

we agree there is need for change, but why would that change necessarily be socialism? If it’s not the mechanism that defines capitalism abstractly that’s the problem, then there would be no issues with implementing that mechanism again, in different conditions, after we achieve radical change.