No, and no.

Prices in kapitalism

You still spell it that way!

are set by demand and supply and are the way to signal the relative scarcities of each.

Not when monopolies are formed, which are inevitable under capitalism, and prices can be kept high even when demand is low because a few big companies control the product. In a system of social ownership, fiscal price tags aren't necessary, as substitutes for scarce substances can be readily utilized, since there is no motive for selling rare things (such as gold) just to secure a sizable profit from those who can afford it.

The Communist Bloc countries set prices according to planning targets regardless of supply and demand. They may still imply that things are not for free; but they are very different from prices set by market mechanisms.

They still have a price tag, no matter why or on what basis they are set. Nothing like free access delivering the full fruit of one's labor is available for workers under a Leninist statist system.

Production was also not according to the profit motive. It was according to planning targets and quotas of products made. Regardless of theoretical profits or losses.

Still having price tags that limited worker consumption on the basis of individual ability to pay (where not distributed in very limited amounts via government subsidy), which is why it was often referred to as a "non-capitalist market." It still resulted in gross class divisions, including a small bureaucratic class of "haves" and a vastly larger working class of "have far less's".

Why not? That's a non sequitur.

No, it makes sense, because there would be no impetus to "cut corners" by refusing to install necessary safety measures due to a financial cost, which would not be a concern in a moneyless economy that required capital for everything.

The social ownership, at least, dissolves any possible responsibility and accountability if environmental damage happens.

It removes the shackles that force workers to damage the environment in the first place. They will never be told by a "boss" that due to the financial expense of installing such safety measures, they had to choose between preserving the biosphere and preserving their jobs.

I know we can produce for everyone.

Good, because as a famed military unit once said: "Knowing is half the battle."

The point is that poverty is always the default state.

That is, if you're born into a capitalist system as a member of the working class. Certainly not if you're one of the lucky few to be born into a capitalist family and end up a trust fund baby.

Technological progress accumulates in ways which help everyone. But everyone is born poor.


Everyone is born with nothing. Everyone needs to go and get their own livelihood.

Paris Hilton and other heirs and heiresses to capitalist fortunes may have disagreement.

*I know this is theory, and in practice works different*: babies have their sustenance provided for by their parents; and even later, few people today directly work in their own provision (rather than in another job which gives them money to then buy food and other basics). But all of these deviations from hunting and gathering for yourself only exist through social groups, from the family up, and could suddenly disappear in societal collapse: natural disaster, zombie apocalypse, or you becoming stranded on a desert island or isolated spot in the mountains, forests or deserts. That is why poverty is still natural, and even a Neolithic level of material advancement is not natural.

Such disasters are far less likely if we're not divided into numerous conflicting material interests each competing against each other for the greatest amount of financial power. If we all worked for the common good, the environment would benefit as much as the human race did, since we would finally be in a position to acknowledge the reciprocal relationship between the two.

And yet, oursourcing has been the greatest force behind reduction of poverty in the world.

And yet, it forces workers on different locations in the globe to compete against each other, and it often puts foreign workers into exploitative working situations that in no way remove poverty, but simply keep them from starving so they can live for another 12 hour day of drudgery.

It has literally taken hundreds of millions of Chinese from starvation to middle class in two generations, and is now doing the same in Southeast Asia, and will subsequently do it in India and Africa.

Nothing to do with the emerging Chinese capitalist class learning to exploit its workers more efficiently. You won't see any large degree of prosperity among what passes for the Chinese "middle class".

And yet again, those cheaper products have managed to achieve essentially universal coverage by refrigerators, TV sets, washing and drying machines, et c., in the First World, something which hadn't been achieved even by the 1970s. Despite rises in inequality and in unemployment. The First World is now so rich that even when it's poor, it's richer than the 1950s middle class.

Yet only a tiny fraction of the population enjoys the bulk of that wealth.

But that's still not what I was talking about. I was talking about countries becoming richer when they deregulate and poorer when they regulate; and about how this is evident when looking at comparisons within the same region and at migration patterns between close countries.

But that's still not what I was talking about. I was talking about countries becoming richer when they deregulate and poorer when they regulate; and about how this is evident when looking at comparisons within the same region and at migration patterns between close countries.

What this really means is the rich becoming richer when there is less regulation, and less of a disparity in wealth distribution between the two classes when there is heavy regulation. Judging the wealth of a nation without taking into account how much a percentage of the population actually has majority access to that wealth is a form of political dirty pool.

In that sense, of course I love that at least a few are able to have the greater material affluence of the mega rich. Because that means that someday everyone will have it.

Maybe someday when a classless and moneyless society is established, which this modern level of technological development makes possible.