• howmuchlonger@lemmy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    15 days ago

    Agree to disagree. Billionaires are the definition of capitalism. Defending their existence is just SINO

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      Billionaires are bourgeoisie. The existence of the bourgeoisie does not mean a system is capitalist alone, what’s important is what is the principal aspect of the economy. You’re relying on the “one-drop” rule, which would imply that the existence of a public post office in the US means that the US is fully communist. That’s obviously ridiculous, private ownership is the principal aspect of the Statesian economy, but this is the limit of the “one-drop” rule.

      Capitalism is a mode of production, not a class. I am not defending the permanent existence of the bourgeoisie, but instead defending a system where the bourgeoisie is waning and socialized production is rising. I am defending the transitional status as valid and moving, not a static, unmoving snapshot.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 days ago

          I never excused billionaires, I only defended socialism. Please, explain how your vehemont opposition to any movement that does not immediately result in communism makes you a “real socialist.” How do you think communism is to come into existence, if not through socialism?