• quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Competition even in theory:

    I won the competition, now buy my linen at 10x its value. Btw it costs 1,000 years of the average salary to start up a competing business, good luck lol

    porky-happy speech-l

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The same is true of many implementations of communism. The problem isn’t the system, the problem is people, and people try to corrupt the system to their benefit.

      • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Lmao, I literally read this exact same “argument” from a different user in a different thread five minutes ago.

        You guys really need to come up with some new material.

      • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean, in the the liberal west used violence to replace comunism with a right wing dictatorship. Yes.

        However that isn’t really a flaw in comunist theory

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yes. Basically, any time someone tries to do something nice for everyone and introduce communism, some people or other come along and fuck it all up. Then they call their fucked up monstrosity “communism” to further damage the credibility of any meaningful progress.

          Those people are the same people who fuck up capitalism and distort it for their benefit. Maybe it’s easier for them to do under capitalism, maybe that’s just what they’re used to and they don’t want to change, but if all you do is deal with capitalism as the problem then you’re still going to have a people problem with whatever comes next.

            • TWeaK@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              You call them capitalists because they were successful at fucking up capitalism.

              • DoiDoi [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                I think you are missing some necessary historical context to follow along with what they’re saying here. Capitalists (through military, CIA, NATO etc) have routinely engaged in mass killings of communists around the world. One specific instance being the murder of 1 million+ people (communists) in Indonesia between 1965-1966 all organized and funded by the US. There’s a great book about this called The Jakarta Method: Washington’s Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World that I think everyone who isn’t familiar with the incident should read.

              • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Cna you show me an example of where capitlaism has worked? The system has failed every time it has been tried. It is so bad that being around it is bad for other systems. If the systems they touch always fair it is time to consider why they are so toxic.

      • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        The same is true of many implementations of communism. The problem isn’t the system, the problem is people, and people try to corrupt the system to their benefit.

        People everywhere have always been exactly the same since the dawn of time. Mitochondrial Adam and Eve were literally McDonald’s franchise owners. I am extremely intelligent.

  • Life2Space@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    “Competition is good because it leads to cheaper prices for consumers”, doesn’t really work since it neglects the union of the state and monopolies to artificially charge higher prices for items of the same - even worse quality; while hindering competition that has the potential to change the status quo.

    I mean—the US is trying to prevent the world from cooperating with China, Russia and other major economies because they know that they are incapable of competing due to their decades-long crusade of neoliberalism. Another example is the fossil fuel industry stalling for time against the wave of the renewable energy era; or the automobile industry lobbying against efficient public transportation.

    The point is that the major neoliberal powers don’t want competition to exist; they just want rent-seeking sectors that can earn them a treasure trove of money as fast as possible.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Thing is that it’s not a static system. Competition leads to winners growng. Bigger companies enjoy advantages such as economies of scale, brand recognition, established supply chains, and so on.

      This means that the initial cost for new players that want ti compete with such companies grows as well. Forx example, a scrappy startup isn’t going to be able to take on Amazon.

      And if a new company does develop something that gives it a serious advantage then the bigger company can just buy it out.

      • PeeOnYou [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I had this discussion with my brother in law while drinking one night. He was going on about the free market or something and we sort of just talked through how the market could be free like people say. Organically we both realized just by talking it through that there’s no way the could be a “free market” because the rules are always backed by state violence or the threat thereof.
        But beyond that, as certain companies succeed, they grow. As they grow they kill competition either by absorbing them, by out competing them, or by using vast resources to kill them through attrition. As they continue to grow they diversity to try to gain further advantages. They begin to control their supply chains and own the resources that ensure even their would be competitors become reliant on them, essentially neutering potential competition. They corner markets. If there were a “free market” it would end up as a single company that owned everything. At a certain point a single company would become so integral and so powerful that it would control the government, the banks, and all the resources and it would care nothing for anyone outside of the people who keep it in power and control.

        Obviously this isn’t how things are though. There isn’t a “free market”, instead there are cabals that rig the system to keep themselves on top but none seem to gain enough advantage to kill off each other to take over entirely. There are likely many reasons why that hasn’t or maybe can’t happen outside of a singular perfectly seized opportunity, but the resulting situation we find ourselves in is hardly any better. It’s close enough that most people in the world are deemed unimportant and expendable, if not detrimental.

    • PeeOnYou [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      or the oil industry teaming up with the US government to kill off electric transportation 60+ years ago and prior to that killing off rail transportation