• yuritopia [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    8 months ago

    You say “centralized control” but that doesn’t really mean anything. After all, the capitalist class already have centralized their power, and their class interests mean they structure every feature of both business and government to keep it that way. Socialism, as defined by a dictatorship of the proletariat, upends this class dynamic entirely. So no, socialism does not “require centralized control” just because a classless society would utilize central planning efficiency to meet societal goals. This is fundamentally, scientifically different from the current system of bourgeoisie control.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      After all, the capitalist class already have centralized their power

      Please elaborate. I am not sure what you mean when you say that the capitalist class has centralized their power.

      • CindyTheSkull [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        You’re the one who said:

        socialism fundamentally requires centralized control, and I don’t trust centralized control.

        What did you mean when you said that? There is no way in which socialism “requires” anything like this that capitalism also doesn’t require in terms of controlling the population. At least in socialism the population has control over the population rather than a small elite class (the bourgeoisie aka capitalist class aka owning class) as in capitalism. If you are talking about a planned economy, then again, capitalism does this too and you need look no further than fucking amazon as an example. The economy is just planned around gaining more capital for a small class instead of actually serving the needs of people as in socialism.

        Finally,

        I don’t trust society not to deliberately appoint a tyrannical megalomaniac: I’ve seen them do it entirely too often.

        No, you haven’t. You’ve been told that happened as a means of propaganda to make sure you and everyone like you (people not part of the owning class) think exactly what you do now think “ooooooh noes scary socialism always turns ebil dictatortotship!” Show us what socialist societies (AES) “appointed a tyrannical megalomaniac” and we’ll show you a load a bullshit that has been force-fed to the people of a capitalist society ruled by the real tyrannical megalomaniacs: the capitalist class.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          No, you haven’t

          I didn’t say socialism appoints them. I said society. Socialism is not a prophylaxis against society fucking itself over by declaring itself subject to a tyrant.

          • robinn_IV@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            With socialism comes the first mass state and genuine rule by the majority. You can’t just generalize “society” as having a tendency of “fucking itself over” when this “society” is ruled by completely different classes depending on the level of development of the productive forces.

      • yuritopia [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        What I mean by this is that there is no choice for capitalists but participate in our economic system. If a “nice” business owner tries to be fair to their workers, give them the full value of their labor, etc., then they will be out-competed by a company that does not. As long as workers continue working for a company (no strike or anything), then the safest course for a business to take is maximum profit and wage exploitation. This way, they keep wages down, their shareholders are happy, etc. Now, there’s always a balancing act they put on so that workers don’t realize this, be that platitudes like game rooms at tech start-ups, all the way to traditional methods like raising wages.

        Because of this, businesses will naturally gravitate toward anti-worker practice. As late-stage capitalism progresses, this becomes even more brutal. Now the biggest companies maintain their competitive advantage by lobbying, PACs, propaganda, owning the news stations. Joe Biden and Donald Trump both have lavish dinners with donors and business owners who discuss politics and national policy. And because these business owners are from Microsoft and Raytheon, they further America’s goals (substitute America for any Capitalist country too). The capitalist class has centralized power because any individual in the class who tries to steer policy toward worker protections and limits on their own class are quickly out-competed.

        I’m basing this analysis on some of the later chapters of Capital like Vol. 1, Ch. 25, Section 2 (I skimmed this just now to make sure I could word this response correctly). I do recommend the entirety of Capital for a scientific breakdown of worker power and commodity production. Hexbear has a reading group for the book going on now.

      • robinn_IV@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Read this

        TL;DR: The growth of banks concentrates capital more closely, and also development causes the creation of truces between capitalists and mixes capitalist control between industries.