No, the argument being made is that having a handful of oligarchs who own capital make such decisions leads to exploitation. People who have been appointed democratically by the people to represent them deciding such things is a completely different matter. A government in a communist society represents the people, and the means of production are publicly owned by the people. That’s what prevents exploitation that capitalism enables by allowing people to rule over others.
You’ve introduce a new term here, “leads to”. The discussion we’ve been having was about whether it is valid to say that capitalism “enables” exploitation, not “leads to”. They’re not the same thing.
It’s clear from this change in your wording and from this discussion in general that you’re being loose in your use of terminology. We’re having a discussion about whether a particular term is used in a valid way so being loose in the use of terminology completely obviates the discussion.
I think the problem is that you don’t want to have a discussion about the use of the word “enable”, you want to rage against capitalism.
You’ve introduce a new term here, “leads to”. The discussion we’ve been having was about whether it is valid to say that capitalism “enables” exploitation, not “leads to”. They’re not the same thing.
I use leads to as in systemically creates a situation that results in exploitation. You’re just playing word games here now. Once again, I’ve explained the precise mechanic responsible, and you continue to ignore that while fixating on the type of wording I’m using instead of addressing the substance of what’s being said.
I think the problem is that you don’t want to have a discussion about the use of the word “enable”, you want to rage against capitalism.
I think the problem is that you’re not engaging with what I’m saying and have not put forward any coherent argument.
Capitalism isn’t what enables exploitation.
Repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true.
Which is an argument nobody made here.
In response to my comment asserting
you stated
which appears to be you attempting to make that argument.
No, the argument being made is that having a handful of oligarchs who own capital make such decisions leads to exploitation. People who have been appointed democratically by the people to represent them deciding such things is a completely different matter. A government in a communist society represents the people, and the means of production are publicly owned by the people. That’s what prevents exploitation that capitalism enables by allowing people to rule over others.
You’ve introduce a new term here, “leads to”. The discussion we’ve been having was about whether it is valid to say that capitalism “enables” exploitation, not “leads to”. They’re not the same thing.
It’s clear from this change in your wording and from this discussion in general that you’re being loose in your use of terminology. We’re having a discussion about whether a particular term is used in a valid way so being loose in the use of terminology completely obviates the discussion.
I think the problem is that you don’t want to have a discussion about the use of the word “enable”, you want to rage against capitalism.
Capitalism isn’t what enables exploitation.
Take care.
I use leads to as in systemically creates a situation that results in exploitation. You’re just playing word games here now. Once again, I’ve explained the precise mechanic responsible, and you continue to ignore that while fixating on the type of wording I’m using instead of addressing the substance of what’s being said.
I think the problem is that you’re not engaging with what I’m saying and have not put forward any coherent argument.
Repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true.
Take care.