You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Steemit... 'Is it Communist, Capitalist, or Maybe Both?'

in #informationwar6 years ago (edited)

Bidbots aren't capitalist, but rather communist, and gift economies aren't communist, but are neither capitalist. There are many more economic models than communist and capitalist, although most are more like one or the other. I'm not an economist, and haven't made a study of the field, so don't expect a lot of jargon from me.

Suppose a guy is wandering in the wilderness and finds a beautiful stream in a glade in the woods. He falls in love with the place, builds a cabin, and dams the stream to make a pond, where he raises ducks, and uses the water to irrigate his crop he grows in the glade. Free enterprise, right?

One day a war party shows up at his door. A village downstream has been afflicted with a drought because the guy has dammed their stream and diverted their water source. Do they scalp him, or walk away because he's just entitled to do whatever he wants?

The rewards pool is being sold by bidbots. Like the forest stream, it's not theirs to divert. What bidbots do isn't free enterprise, it's essentially theft of a common resource no one has a right to sell. The enclosure movement in England caused people to die, so bidbots are relatively benign, yet the principle is the same: profiteering by taking from people what they don't take from you first.

Communism is a form of collectivism that involves a state that takes all resources, say, the rewards pool, and doles it out equally. A couple things. We've never seen an actual communist government, because no state ever doles things out per the rhetoric, but parcels out far more generous portions to a favored few. Also, that's pretty much what bidbots do. That's why they're more communist than free enterprise. But capitalism is also more communist than free enterprise.

Being similar words, community and communism sound like they mean the same thing, but they don't. When I was a child in Paris, I lived in a community (actually a smaller town just outside Paris) where the people had various free enterprise businesses, or worked for large industries or government. The streets were lined with small shops that each specialized to a degree that was astounding to me. There were Boulangeries, Patisseries, and other shops, all specialized kinds of bakeries. There was a fishmonger, a butcher, a tobacconist, etc.

That's free enterprise, and on Steemit, it's like posting your own content that the community can 'buy' with an upvote. Bidbots are like Walmart coming in and replacing all the little shops and shopkeepers with their megastores. That's far more collectivist than it is free enterprise, even if they are able to undercut the local shops on price long enough to bankrupt them before they jack up the prices and become profitable.

Walmart has deep pockets, capital, with which it can afford to sustain a lengthy period of taking losses while the shopkeepers can't. Capitalism isn't free enterprise, it's monopolism, corporatism, and rapine destruction, rather than progress.

That's bidbots.

That's capitalism and collectivism, both quite similar in many respects, rather than opposites as we have been indoctrinated to believe.

Free enterprise isn't capitalism, it's people employing their share of a resource and adding value, like air, water, land, etc., not seizing the whole of the resource like the enclosure movement in England that caused devastating economic catastrophe for the common people that had shared the grazing lands for centuries before it was fenced to keep their flocks out.

It's not communism to say we all have a share in air, water, and land. It's the fact of life, of the nature of humanity. Which deer owns the forest? Which otter owns the river? Which human owns the cropland in N. America? Monsanto, a legal person.

That's not free enterprise, it's piracy.

Sort:  

What you pose is exactly what John Locke said, and that is the true spirit of the free market.

Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it, it hath by his labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.

Thank you for that. I really do need to study philosophy
more and I mean all philosophy, including that of those
whom I disagree with. I like what I hear about John Locke.

You might be interested in this @vieira I watched the
whole thing, all twelve hours, and enjoyed it very much.

I feel you man, and your ways with analogies are superb. All I can say though is if you remove the corporate profits from Jeff Bezos' enterprises or Bill Gates for that matter what choice would they have but to pull stakes and sell?

What does it benefit them if they are not to benefit? Most people in this world will never do business in such a way where they merit that kind of money, most people are not that needy of money (or greedy) however you decide to look at it.

My only point with this article is to get people to try and see this from a point of individual rights as opposed to what is best for the collective good.

There are lots of things that are for the collective good. If we shut down a popular shoe shop that uses a check mark as it's symbol then slaves who make those shoes will no longer be utilized to sell overpriced shoes in America.

However, they also will be out of jobs if we do that. If we call people who drink or smoke the enemy because they support products that kill people.

Then maybe we need to ask ourselves about people who support automobiles and peanut butter because these things too kill people on a larger scale maybe, I do not know the exact statistics.

As far as Moreshitshow is concerned that's another story entirely. When an organization is doling out cancer as their business model, if they really want to be a person, let them have individual rights, and let them be prosecuted for biological warfare.

I think you're supporting Crony Capitalism, and not the free market. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, are entrepreneurs who benefit from the legislation, and who enjoy special benefits. However, that does not mean that you are necessarily wrong about the voting bots, the truth is that I do not have a clear position on the role of the bots in the Steemit community, so for now I continue to support the current system.

You know, you might be correct if you think of voting in terms of the political realm. Just when I thought I saw Steemit in every way possible you bring in a new paradigm for me to consider. I've actually never thought about Steemit in the realm of politics but now with your analogy of crony capitalism, you have inspired me to.

There are just so many ways to view this platform, so many different paradigms and I think we all generally tend to fixate to one, either that or jump between many. I have the curse of being able to see it from the standpoint of many paradigms.

"...if you remove the corporate profits from Jeff Bezos' enterprises or Bill Gates for that matter what choice would they have but to pull stakes and sell?"

You follow that with a comment about individual rights. I strongly urge you to examine both Bezos' and Gates' histories, and you will see that they gained their stakes through quite nefarious means. Gates literally stole almost every flagship product that put Microshaft on the market, DOS from DRDOS, and Windows from Macintosh. He also did a lot of other things that swindled his friends and folks he did business with, in order to gain shares in Microshaft, and business with big companies. Bezos' employees presently need welfare to make ends meet because he pays so little, and does such shady deals in his HR. Neither would have what they do if they respected individual rights.

Corporations don't need to be what laws and rapine swindlers make them. Many small corporations are owned by folks that care about and respect each the other's rights, and large corporations could be held to the same standards--but government collusion panders and grovels at the feet of big money, so they can be pirates, just like @bellyrub was.

Monsanto is just like them. The problem with making corporations legal persons is you can't hang a corporation for murder. The individual directors and officers of corporations cannot be afforded the shield of such a legal fiction to prevent their prosecution for the crimes they commit via corporate business undertakings.

People do the acts that corporations and states are claimed to have made. Corporations and states cannot act. They're just agreements. People act, and are responsible for their acts, no matter what agreements they make. It is the people working for Monsanto that are guilty of the crimes that Monsanto commits, no matter what pieces of paper they wave around say.

Publicly traded corporations have a fiscal responsibility to make their shareholders a profit. The more the corporation grows the more shareholders there are and more the shareholders their are the larger are the gains that need to be made.

This forces them to keep growing and to have to keep innovating for new ways to make profits. So I wonder if Jeff for example is just an evil person or if he is simply complying with the standards laid out for publicly traded corporations.

Notice I did not mention Bill. This was intentional. His vaccine endeavors and thoughts on population control seem like they might border along the lines of evil and I'm not sure that his pursuit in these endeavors has anything to do with being a slave to his corporate creations.

Why do corporations have charters? Have a look at the history of corporations, and you will see that corporations have evolved from folks that were granted profits from doing a thing that was necessary to advance civilization and do good for society, into what you have noted: a mechanism which is solely intended to profit stockholders.

Yeah, corporate charters used to be rare. Now,
seemingly everything has been turned into a
corporation.

yep, that pretty much hits the nail on the head. A capitalist’s aim will always be to destroy competition and the free market as those are 2 things that stand in the way of profit. I think it was a self affirmed communist in Lenin who said something about Capitalism being the final form of Imperialism.

You have a gift for parables my good man. Do you ever let your voice out in any way, as in radio or podcasts?

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.29
TRX 0.12
JST 0.033
BTC 63852.87
ETH 3135.82
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.83