Anonymous
10/17/2025, 5:51:10 PM
No.150878577
>>150878542
There is no capitalism without the state so thats a meaningless distinction. What happens is that a business becomes wealthy enough to buy up or cancel competition. The state is used as a tool in that arrangement but its not the source of the issue. The source of the issue is that monopolies make perfect economic sense and capital attracts more capital. Its only through state intervention that monopolies can be broken up. For corporations, the incentive is always to become as monopolistic as possible. Its part of the infinite growth mindset. Democratic socialism cuts against that tendency towards monopolization through worker ownership. If workers own their corporations, they aren't incentivized to sabotage and assimilate other enterprises to the same extent private shareholders are. Their profits and pride are more tied to the goods & services they provide. Its a different logic.
There is no capitalism without the state so thats a meaningless distinction. What happens is that a business becomes wealthy enough to buy up or cancel competition. The state is used as a tool in that arrangement but its not the source of the issue. The source of the issue is that monopolies make perfect economic sense and capital attracts more capital. Its only through state intervention that monopolies can be broken up. For corporations, the incentive is always to become as monopolistic as possible. Its part of the infinite growth mindset. Democratic socialism cuts against that tendency towards monopolization through worker ownership. If workers own their corporations, they aren't incentivized to sabotage and assimilate other enterprises to the same extent private shareholders are. Their profits and pride are more tied to the goods & services they provide. Its a different logic.