Why are capitalists allowed to exist? They contribute nothing to society

>are too strong for the rest of us to overcome them right now.
not really. The state has the monopoly of violence, it could take the capital any time

I have no idea how it is related to OP question

>you can't exactly put a factory into a suitcase
but you can take your knowledge of how to run it as well as your vast personal wealth. Like what happened in zimbabwe.

Op's question is retarded because state managed capital is still capitalism. You're just replacing individual capitalist with a single national capitalist.

>knowledge of how to run it
That's what managers or engineers have. I would only take the capital, not purge a entire group of people, like whites in Zimbabwe

The benefit is that the capital is owned by a democratic instution, not by a private person

Why are you being so aggressively stupid? Do you find this funny?

Not history or humanities. Saged hidden and reported.

>thats what the managers and engineers have
Then the managers and engineers would follow the money out of their country. What makes you think they'd want to work for you? They're already compensated well enough as-is.

Why are you so angry? Are you a capitalist?

They create the jobs you should be grateful for.

Fuck off tankie, the state can oppress the working class just as brutally as private capitalists. Capitalism in any form is brutal. Read Marx and Bordiga.

>the capital is owned by a democratic institution
Great, so now the retards who voted in trump are managing our economy as well.

political and economic ideology is part of Humanities.
The question who should own capital was an important question in 20th century philosophy

Nothing would change for them, they only get a new employer

a dictatorship, for sure. But in a democracy, state must please the people, or else the individuals in power will be voted out of office

Under the classical model:

Marx himself thought capitalists added value to the production process, just not enough to justify owning the entire profit margin.

As to why capitalists are allowed to exist, the perform a managerial function as mentioned, an experimental function as entrepreneurs, a price function through directing investment and assume the risk that the return on investment in capital (which increases supply) will not be enough to justify the investment (opportunity cost).

This price/profit structure incentivizes the increase of capital towards the most demanded products or services and thereby satisfies growing demand on resources from increased population or standard of living.

The post-modern model is different because now capital and labour are extremely mobile.

But yeah if you haven't looked into the economic theory or had any interaction with the bourgeois class on an interpersonal level, I could see why you think they just collect money or something but that's only true for a set of commercial institutions who's method for profiting haven't changed in centuries (Underwriting, mortgages, lines of credit, etc.). And what you find in these institutions is that the rate of profit is about 4% per year.

That's an argument against democracy, not state capitalism

>they only get a new employer
Great, so now we've got the canadian healthcare system but in factories now. Wonderful.

Why would they do this when capitalists control the state?

So now the state keeps all the money instead of the capitalists?

>As to why capitalists are allowed to exist, the perform a managerial function as mentioned, an experimental function as entrepreneurs, a price function through directing investment and assume the risk that the return on investment in capital (which increases supply) will not be enough to justify the investment (opportunity cost).
sure, I just dont see why state owned companies couldn't do the same

what makes you think managers or engineers would stay to work for you

government controls the state. Voters control who sits in government, and most voters are not capitalists

>i don't see why state-owned companies couldn't do the same
if they perform the same function then why are we changing anything anyways? what makes you think the state will be any less "greedy" than the capitalists?

what you think of capitalism isn't true capitalism. people were never suppose to be billionaires and probably not even 1/4 billionaires. it's suppose to trickle down but the system is fucked right now through the central banking scheme and no checks and balances on the earth's wealth distribution.

Exactly. The state now has a budget surplus, instead of the money going into private pockets

Maximize profits and then distribute them.

Managers in private companies are paid to do whats best for the shareholders.
Managers in state companies are paid to do whats best for the state

That's a formula for Stalinism. The state is not class neutral. All you've done is set up a new ruling class. I also doubt a state could claim a total monopoly on capital and remain "democratic" even in the bourgeois sense.

why wouldn't they? They are not affected by the change of ownership

Are commies just pretending to be retarded?

>true capitalism has never been tried

Yes, but the new ruling class is at the mercy of voters.
Stalinism was bad because it was a dictatorship, not because of public ownership of capital

Oh boy, it's a /leftypol/ thread! Let's get a quick run down on how this thread will go

>Seiz da mean of reproduction :DDD
>Socialism has only ever happened in Free Territory of Ukraine and Republican Spain
>No, FUCK YOU tankie, that isn't real socialism
>implying I care what a g
Crapitalist thinks

I am not a communist, since I am not conviced a state- and monyless society can work.
What I dont see why state capitalism shouldnt be possible

it happened when Mexico nationalized the oil industry, it took them years to make it work.
Cuba too.

I prefer this one

Problem is that it's factually incorrect to believe those men would have called their societies communism

>Yes, but the new ruling class is at the mercy of voters.
That isn't even true of bourgeois democracies. Just look at who controls the media, think tanks, campaign funding, police etc.

Because western imperialist countries boycotted mexico, not because some inherit flaw of nationalisation

capitalists have a huge influence through lobbying and owning media companies.
This wouldn't be possible in state capitalism

Everything they did was just a step to eventually create a Communist society

seriously why do threads like this not get deleted?
MODS!

Everything they did was in order to create a society with a productive economy that provided equal and lavish wealth to every member?

>& Humanities

Again this is pure utopianism. Delegation of power in the context of classes opens up the opportunity to reinforce loyalty. And such loyalty ties inevitably give rise to an oligarchy. The state owning all capital just further incentivizes corruption since now companies have to wheel and deal to get funding.

>look at OP again
>it's /pol/-tier garbage
>he uses the &humanities excuse
>like a real /pol/ack
your shitposting is the same shit

>State could take the capital

Please elaborate how OPs question is not part of humanities. It is even part of history, since it is a topic that had a huge importance in the economic philosophy of the 20th century

No, I'm done talking to morons for today.
Now fuck yourself.

You could argue same is true for violence. Yet we delegate the monopoly of violence to the state, and it does kinda work

>The state owning all capital just further incentivizes corruption since now companies have to wheel and deal to get funding.
Sure, it is a challenge, but I think it is doable if you make the process transparent and separate the powers and different institutions, like we do with the three branches of government

>pull 3 billion people out of poverty
>"contribute nothing"

>pull 3 billion people out of poverty
Are you talking about Soviet Union and Communist China?