There are lots of other galaxy-brain moments there.

"Single payer economies leads to bad things like Bolshevism and Stalin"

@UlyssesT@hexbear.net Let's hear your rant

  • Tachanka [comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Dude is against open source cuz "it mathematically leads to monopoly" while working for Microsoft.

    lenin-rage

    capitalism leads to monpoly. not open source. why does capitalism lead to monopoly? because capitalism is competitive, and competitions have winners and losers. when a loser enterprise is vanquished under capitalism, it is either driven from the market through bankruptcy, or it is absorbed/merged into a winner enterprise. Eventually the winner enterprises get so big that it is prohibitively expensive to enter the market in competition with them, and smaller firms simply become auxiliary forces for the large firms, to be absorbed when the charade of separateness is no longer useful. Once all firms are vanquished/absorbed/made into auxiliaries, you have a vertically and horizontally integrated monopoly enterprise. How do you get rid of this monopoly? Under socialism, you would nationalize it. Under capitalism, you simply "trust bust" it like Teddy Roosevelt did, and force a RETVRN to the state of competition. In both situation, ancaptain will complain that you are "punishing winners", of course.

    "Single payer economies leads to bad things like Bolshevism and Stalin"

    Even if you think Communism is bad, this is idiotic. Single payer policies alone aren't socialism. If an imperialist capitalist state has free health care, Lenin is not going to rise from the grave. And Tsarist Russia, on the eve of the October Revolution did not have a "Single Payer Economy" which led to Bolshevism lmfao.

    What led to Bolshevism was the failures of the Tsar and his ministers, the Russo-Japanese War, WW1, the black hundreds, the pogroms, the failure of the 3 dumas, the failure of Stolypin's reforms, the failure of the provisional government and Kerensky, etc. etc. etc. shit this bazinga brain has probably never even read about.

    • UmbraVivi [he/him, she/her]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eventually the winner enterprises get so big that it is prohibitively expensive to enter the market in competition with them, and smaller firms simply become auxiliary forces for the large firms, to be absorbed when the charade of separateness is no longer useful. Once all firms are vanquished/absorbed/made into auxiliaries, you have a vertically and horizontally integrated monopoly enterprise.

      Lemme tell you about a lil' something called "Innovation" smuglord

      Under communism, there is no innovation because everyone is forced to do the same thing or they get shot. Under capitalism, innovation is rewarded by 1 person becoming a billionaire and everyone else also gets richer because capitalism is when people have money. Do you want people to have no money? No innovation? I know what it's like to live in a communist country (I was born in Ukraine in 1999) and let me tell you, you would change your mind very quickly if you experienced the reality of it.

      If there was a monopoly under capitalism, the people would simply vote with their wallets to promote healthy competition because capitalism is synonymous with democracy. Arguably the only thing more democratic than capitalism is the blockchain. I have been huffing lead paint for the past 3 hours straight.

      • Tachanka [comrade/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have been huffing lead paint for the past 3 hours straight.

        just as ancaptain intended

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      failure of Stolypin’s reforms

      His agrarian reform purpose was to entrench kulaks, which was pretty sucessful, though not enough to prevent revolution.