you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 52 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Capitalism is economic terrorism.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 28 points 9 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    ceos are like head slaves on plantation. While they are pieces of collaborating shits, they are not the root of this rot. And even those that are, are so intertwined with everything that you cant fix this just by getting rid of them. All this shit is so annoying, since its so tangled up there is no clean way to deal with it and if you do it wrong, it just leads to something even worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    One could argue that patents and copyright are anti-capitalist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    They are, actually. The point of patents and copyright is not to protect the creator- that's a temporary effect. The point is to release the thing to the public afterwards. The problem is that capitalism corrupts the process and finds ways to make the temporary effects permanent. Disney has succeeded in making copyright last effectively forever.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    They are literally monopolies on whatever they concern.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Correct. Patents and copyrights are state granted monopolies that are in direct opposition to free market forces that capitalism thrives on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Free market? As in, competition between different enterprises? And what do you think happens when one company "wins" that competition? It will use that power to establish a monopoly (or a cartel with a couple buddy companies). Both "free market" and "private monopoly" are capitalist fenomena, just at different stages of development of industry.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Sure, everyone should work for free except you, of course.

    Patents only last 15 years. why isn't the government making insulin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Copyrights and patents generate enormous amounts of wealth from rent seeking. This wealth has been used to continue to entrench these draconian concepts into our legal and governmental systems.

    Even worse they have been used to stop the spread of information and monopolize development thus slowing down technological advancement. So many people have died so these clowns can make a buck.

    One could argue that artificial scarcity is a farce, but unless you have more money than the people who benefit from IP, your voice will not be heard on a policy level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    So, you agree patents and copyrights are contrary to capitalism and free markets?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Personally, I think that if small business capitalism actually existed then it would run contrary to that.

    There would be no need for copyright or patents. These systems create artificial scarcity which hinders society as a whole to benefit a minority.

    I feel like our existing system of laissez-faire capitalism fully embraces the rent seeking found in intellectual property.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I think there is a balance to be made. Some anti capitalist measures are needed to encourage innovation. But the use of patent laws as a defence, or copyright to seek excessive rent are far too aggressive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    If there is any chance of reform it would have to still appeal to all parties. We definitely need to think about solutions that have not been proposed before.

    As much as I would like to advocate for abolishment of IP, I recognize it is an unrealistic demand.

    After all, IP didn't magically appear. It took hundreds of years of court cases and laws passed to get to the arguably ridiculous point we are now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I like the idea of having to pay a fee to retain copyright. And that fee doubles every year.

    It starts off low but after a decade or two it becomes more economical to let the copyright lapse.

    Patents should be scrapped completely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Oh, I like that because it puts a ever increasing burden to use it or lose it. Once it is no longer profitable it goes back to public domain.

    I find patents of dubious value to say the least. It is definitely the worst part of IP.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    If there is any chance of reform it would have to still appeal to all parties.

    There's nothing such as change that appeals to all parties; that is not how that works. Change, good or bad, is forced by one segment of society over another, doubly so when it's against the interests of the ultra-rich. Don't compromise in advance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    In that case "real capitalism" doesn't exist, because patents have been a thing since checks notes 1474.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Anti free market policies can exist within a capitalist structure.

    Historical existence of patents doesn't destroy capitalism, nor make patents less anti capitalist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Okay here's the thing: Calling policies that contribute to monopolies anti-capitalist makes no sense, because by this standard capitalism is anti-capitalist. It's not like monopolies appear out of thin air; concentration of wealth into monopolies or oligopolies is the only possible equilibrium state under capitalism, so deflecting the effects of these monopolies as "anti-capitalist" is an appeal to fiction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    It's not like monopolies appear out of thin air;

    For patents and copyright this is exactly what happens. Adam Smith's invisible hand of capitalism does not create these monpolistic protections naturally. They are an artificial construct of government. An enforced payment by society to creators and inventors.

  • source
  • parent