Capitalism replaces direct, personal exploitation with indirect, impersonal exploitation. It transfers all wrongs into an abstract structural logic. It is at once the most obfuscated and difficult to understand, yet the most efficient at supporting a non working minority class at the expense of everyone else.
The only way out of this is to organize a society upon non-exploitative relations of production. A non-vile system of government can only result from that real basis, not the other way around.
I see what you’re getting at, but your logic is unsound. The structure of capitalism cannot simultaneously be obfuscated and efficient. There might be capacity to argue efficacy, but the evidence would suggest otherwise. Autocratic political systems predominated for the majority of modern human history, save the last 300 years or so.
And then we come to the issue of what “capitalism” really means to you. If societal ownership were equally shared among citizens, that would mean private ownership of the means of production and hence a capitalistic system. And yet this would seem to be a non-exploitative relationship between workers and the product of their labor.
Or perhaps it doesn’t have so much to do with the label applied to the system of power and exchange as it does to the degree to which that system is used to sustain the existence of of in groups whom the law protects without constraint and out groups whom the law constrains without protection.
The structure of capitalism cannot simultaneously be obfuscated and efficient.
Why not? You make this statement as though it’s self-evident, as though it’s a logical impossibility for a system to be both obfuscated and efficient, but I don’t see those two adjectives as logical opposites. I think it’s very possible for systems to be both obfuscated and efficient and I’m curious as to why you believe otherwise.
If societal ownership were equally shared among citizens, that would mean private ownership of the means of production and hence a capitalistic system.
Can you explain what you mean by this? What do you think “public property” is if not property that’s owned in common by the entire society?
Capitalism replaces direct, personal exploitation with indirect, impersonal exploitation. It transfers all wrongs into an abstract structural logic. It is at once the most obfuscated and difficult to understand, yet the most efficient at supporting a non working minority class at the expense of everyone else.
The only way out of this is to organize a society upon non-exploitative relations of production. A non-vile system of government can only result from that real basis, not the other way around.
I see what you’re getting at, but your logic is unsound. The structure of capitalism cannot simultaneously be obfuscated and efficient. There might be capacity to argue efficacy, but the evidence would suggest otherwise. Autocratic political systems predominated for the majority of modern human history, save the last 300 years or so.
And then we come to the issue of what “capitalism” really means to you. If societal ownership were equally shared among citizens, that would mean private ownership of the means of production and hence a capitalistic system. And yet this would seem to be a non-exploitative relationship between workers and the product of their labor.
Or perhaps it doesn’t have so much to do with the label applied to the system of power and exchange as it does to the degree to which that system is used to sustain the existence of of in groups whom the law protects without constraint and out groups whom the law constrains without protection.
Why not? You make this statement as though it’s self-evident, as though it’s a logical impossibility for a system to be both obfuscated and efficient, but I don’t see those two adjectives as logical opposites. I think it’s very possible for systems to be both obfuscated and efficient and I’m curious as to why you believe otherwise.
Can you explain what you mean by this? What do you think “public property” is if not property that’s owned in common by the entire society?