➴➴➴Æ🜔Ɲ.Ƈꭚ⍴𝔥єɼ👩🏻💻<p>So what does this all mean?</p><p>It means that <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/Marx" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Marx</span></a> and <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/Riccardo" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Riccardo</span></a>, and <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/HenryGeorge" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>HenryGeorge</span></a> were all correct. </p><p>There is no workable system of <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/Capitalism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Capitalism</span></a> that will not become some form of <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/Manorialism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Manorialism</span></a> then <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/LateStageCapitalism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>LateStageCapitalism</span></a> and finally <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/Fasicsm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Fasicsm</span></a>. </p><p>Here I'm defining Capitalism specifically a any system that allows arbitrarily large wealth accumulation.</p><p>I do not think there is any possible purely <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/political" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>political</span></a> nor purely <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/economic" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>economic</span></a> solution. Rather, every solution proposed must inherently be a <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/PoliticalEconomy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PoliticalEconomy</span></a> that is resistant to the accumulation of power and a political system that is resistant to the accumulation of power.</p><p>Do I think <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/Marxist" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Marxist</span></a> <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/Socialism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Socialism</span></a> is such a system? No! Absolutely not. I think <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/HenryGeorge" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>HenryGeorge</span></a> was prescient when he called <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/Marxism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Marxism</span></a> a recipe for <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/Authoritarianism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Authoritarianism</span></a>. </p><p>Marx never proposed a political system that was even moderately robust to corruption.</p><p>Likewise, I think preventing returns to capital is bad. We _want_ individual people to invest their surplus into making bursts of short term profit. That is the actual value add capitalism brings.</p><p>Assuming you had a political system resistant to corruption, then <a href="https://lgbtqia.space/tags/Taxes" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Taxes</span></a> are a possible solution. One could, for example, place a small tax on wealth, creating gravitational pressure of the returns to capital. Set to the right level, this should be able to resist massive wealth accumulation.</p><p>I'll have to save my thoughts on political systems to later.</p><p>4/4</p>