Memes

45741 readers

1725 users here now

Rules:

Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1640

Its getting old. (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

128 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] HardNut 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not missing it, that's just a different point. I don't disagree with everything you say here, it just doesn't really address or refute anything I said. I stuck with the topical example of helpful medicine, which is demonstrably controlled by corporations and the state. Thus, it is not at all capitalist.

businesses without a guardrail HAVE proven they will sacrifice everything, literally everything in the name of profit. Hence why market competition should be encouraged, right? Which businesses are you referring to, public ones or private ones? (they both do it btw, don't pin it on private)

Reminder: profit does not mean capitalist, market does not mean capitalist. Public bodies can act in and/or control markets, and they can make profit. That's not a private thing

[–] TheKingBee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Okay, let's do it explain how in a "pure" capitalist society a public body, without the ability to at least nominally use a legal system to guard against collusion and monopoly using the threat of breaking up or shutting down corporations, provide any protection?

Giving them the power to do that makes them just a government by another name.

[–] HardNut 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You literally directly quoted me saying that it seemed like you thought I was advocating for pure capitalism, and now you are directly asking me to defend pure capitalism. You are trying incredibly hard to straw man me into something I'm not, and I would like you to stop that.

This conversion will go no where unless you actually want to respond to things I'm saying, so please let me ask you directly about what I was actually saying: is it appropriate to blame capitalism when a public corporation in collusion with the government is at fault for an issue? If not, why?

[–] TheKingBee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess i'm getting that from when you first said,

but in a truly free market capitalist system

I just assumed you were defending a "truly free market" capitalism.

to address what you just posted,

is it appropriate to blame capitalism when a public corporation in collusion with the government is at fault for an issue? If not, why?

yes, capitalism creates the conditions for that collusion. It allows entities with the only goal of profit at any cost.

removing the government doesn't reduce that corruption it just allows it to go unchecked without even an illusion of protection to the public.

[–] HardNut 1 points 1 year ago

yes, capitalism creates the conditions for that collusion.

Focus on what capitalism means when you say this, and focus on the context you're saying this in. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and we are discussing medicine. So, what you're saying, is that the private control of medicine created the conditions for government collusion with a public corporation, This does not make sense, because public corporations are not private. This is corporatism, not capitalism.

removing the government doesn’t reduce that corruption

Then it's the governments job to allow private entities some avenue to produce medicine. They can do so by not enforcing patents on helpful medicine that empowers corporations.