this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
1777 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
7336 readers
3199 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Ookay... So what's the issue with taxing them? It's not like the office chair they own suddenly becomes useless if they get taxed. Their capital in the most general sense will stay the same."
No, it will not stay the same. That's the point of taxation.
"Ah yes, we were all hunter gatherers until capitalism was invented. We didn't improve our production methods, we didn't improve our tools, we didn't educate ourselves. No offense but that's an absolutely moronic argument."
This just shows how bad faith all of your arguments are. I clearly do not mean competition and profit are necessary, just that they lead to capital accumulation, which is what you denied.
Next we have, honestly, an incredibly wrong understanding of what I said. I will try to explain.
A market compels economic agents to act a certain way, as they are driven by profit, and markets provide information on what is in demand/profitable. Within a market framework, establishing a monopoly is highly profitable and makes a lot of sense. Which is why your accusation of incompetence you made in a previous comment falls apart, since while that, which is profitable is not the same as that which is good for society(governments should try to make sure the markets exist in contexts that make them beneficial) this is irrelevant and they did act rationally.
If you do not accept this, I see no point in talking to you any longer. You are thinking in one line slogans and do not see the context of what I, or you for that matter, are saying.
If you own a chair today how does that change when tomorrow some tax is applied to your "capital"?
I guess it depends on how you define capital accumulation. If we take the standard capitalist understanding of capital, then yes it leads to capital accumulation and I'm not denying that because adding labor power inevitably leads to an increase of capital.
However, you argued that the profit motive and competition lead to production efficiencies and then added that without " an expectation of profit, private property, etc" this doesn't work at all. I denied that you need a profit motive or competition to reach better efficiency. We've had at least 2 millenia of increasing production efficiency a real need for profit or competition. Capitalism is not a necessity for production efficiency. Believing we couldn't be efficient without capitalism is just capitalist propaganda.
Do you even understand what you're saying? You pretty much just said that capitalism is not good for society. And your original argument about the wealthy needing their wealth is one that wants to perpetuate capitalism. You're pretty much arguing against yourself here.
And just as an FYI, markets are not unique to capitalism. Market socialism is also a thing.
What am I supposed to accept? That we should put profits over what is good for the society? If you want me to accept that then I also don't see a point in talking with you. If you want me to accept that capital accumulation is something that happens, I can accept that (though I definitely have a different option on what should be done with that "capital" we keep producing).