• Rojo27 [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    put private companies out of business

    :yes-sicko:

  • TheLepidopterists [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Literally who cares what it's called, if it's the only way to prevent a bunch of babies from starving you do it. What is wrong with liberals?

  • justjoshint [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    if things were better that would actually be worse and here's why

  • Dimmer06 [he/him,comrade/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Yes that's called nationalization. The government does it every couple of decades to keep the system afloat when incompetent capitalists crash it straight into a wall at full speed.

    • RamrodBaguette [comrade/them, he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Capitalism is whenever someone has a market economy and does trade (like Chyna, which is why they are so successful) but also, it's not real capitalism if the government touches any part of it.

      The entire history of capitalism since its inception 600 years ago notwithstanding

  • Awoo [she/her]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    It's called effective state intervention. Governments do it all the time to prevent jobs being lost, in this case jobs are being lost by the closure AND babies are starving.

    If you nationalised the plant that has shut down you can bring it up to standard and keep every worker that was there. If you're stupidly ideological you can even sell it back to the private sector after you've rescued it. There is literally no reason not to nationalise it.

    • ScotPilgrimVsTheLibs [they/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Whoa there, that's pretty Machiavellian of you. Have you no respect for human rights? Now if you'll excuse me, I have some indigenous to taunt. I didn't rob them, I mugged them and now I have the yeehaw freedom burger. All that death was worth it, and don't even get me STARTED on how worth it destroying the environment is for my American Way of Life™

  • RamrodBaguette [comrade/them, he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    You know, I'm beginning to think relying on "Le Market" to provide our basic necessities has it's disadvantages.

    Oh well, better to let Little Timmy go on a "diet" so we can have muh freedoms for an increasingly tiny portion of the population.

    In seriousness, it astounds me how capitalism has gotten so high off its own supply in the 21st Century. At the very least, capitalists (or people who fancy themselves that) of last century understood that you needed to make some concessions to the state and the masses to protect your wealth long term.

    • FemboyStalin [she/her,any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think it's the weapons/defence tech advancements that have emboldened them. They fully have bought in to the end of times and that their weapons will protect them or their descendents.

      • GundamZZ [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        It's because they view the same propaganda media we do. There used to be a separation between high and "low" culture and media amongst workers and art, news, etc. Now they're viewing the same bullshit propaganda we are and believing it. Trump believed the US propaganda that the foreign US bases are actually to other countries' benefits. Tou can see the shift in papers like The Economist and other-pseudo financial papers that used to straight-up justify slavery in unsavoury terms because the bourgeoisie who read it are already OK with it, but now they have to increasingly be subtle and propagandic about it. While papers like Financial Times might still be more honest with their intentions because normies aren't reading it as much, unlike Bloomberg or Forbes.

    • ssjmarx [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      It's like that saying, "be careful who you pretend to be". Capitalists have put out their propaganda for so long that the majority of the ruling class now believes it.