https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KaU6VYnoJI

But when this "shrinkage" goes on, it eliminates the protections of the working-class. In reality, to the bourgeoisie, it's an opportunity for investment.

Let's take my country for example, America.

We're currently trying to repeal Obamacare (a shitty system nonetheless) to free the healthcare market up, so people may invest. Democrats and Republicans have their own lobbyists and rich people they appeal to, and Obamacare represented another side of that bourgeois interest.

get what I mean?

The current system is fucked, we both agree

No fan of the neocons and neo libs

I would say you are more Libertarian, but the thing is, self-regulation with capitalism is unattainable. That's why we have regulations come about in the first place.

And we end up in the same cycle.

A lot of regulation is very positive for certain sectors though

If you agree those politicians are bought and paid for, they're not making it easier for new businesses

Take the high tax for private businesses for example

The new businesses of today are the big businesses of tomorrow.

The average joe pays for it, the big business simply put their stuff in panama

I agree. There is a gap between the small businessman and the big businessman, but the dynamic between what the worker may do and the employer can do in the present and future is still there.

I'm not arguing for a big government.

I don't want the state to nationalize everything, unless they have to when they're under attack.

I want worker's councils, unions, etc so the workers have a direct say in government and the economy. That's what socialism is about.

We can't have that without interfering with the Bourgeois' interest though.

That's an observable fact throughout history.

What happens when a new company comes up, and agrees that he owns the company, he'll run it without the counsels and manages to get big.

What happens to that guy in your society?

He wouldn't be allowed to run it without the council's democratic say in the first place.

It depends on the area, but in socialism

that kind of one man owns everything ownership does not exist.

Why not? It's his idea and he has people who consent to letting him keep it

Because it creates the inequality we talk about it.

You never said anything about people consenting to it.

The inequality now comes from that guy being taxed to high hell by government

It was implied, so they consent, what then?

Who does?

Why would the worker consent to a boss having more control over their lives, if the worker has control?

It's like asking why would the businessman not want workers to own the economy.

Believe me. some people don't want the hassle of counsels and all that, a company is able to find enough people who will do with a higher wage and a stabler job(they have to invest less)

I don't believe you.

What hassle is there?

It's not like it's mandatory.

That's why socialist countries crack down on people who want to do their own thing

This is a whole new government system we're talking about.

>Socialist

State Capitalist.