It seems people prefer power distributed by capital, rather than military might or factionalism/leaders/politics.
Not that all capital is distributed by merit, plenty of people used military might or factionalism/leaders/politics to obtain disproportionate amount of capital.
But if you are against the last 2 happening, I don't see what you expect a reorganization of society to accomplish since you are going to get a power structure of factionalism/leaders/politics taking priority. (Sorry bud, no an-com utopia ever existed, they all had factionalism/leaders/politics, thus defeating the entire purpose of removing class.)
I think most of us think we can capture/retain power easier with money, than having to climb up inter-party politics.
> At least its equitable (based on value of output), ofc there are legacy issues as well.
It's not. By definition, it's based on control of capital. That's why it's called capitalism. In other words, those aren't "legacy" issues; they are literally the system as designed.
Capitalism follows a very simple algorithm. In a capitalist economy, capital always accumulates, with all exceptions being precisely that: exceptions. Are you defending the exceptions or the rules?
Realize there was a very long and quite recent time when capitalism was impossible. By your logic, we should reinstate the divine right of kings.
Not that all capital is distributed by merit, plenty of people used military might or factionalism/leaders/politics to obtain disproportionate amount of capital.
But if you are against the last 2 happening, I don't see what you expect a reorganization of society to accomplish since you are going to get a power structure of factionalism/leaders/politics taking priority. (Sorry bud, no an-com utopia ever existed, they all had factionalism/leaders/politics, thus defeating the entire purpose of removing class.)
I think most of us think we can capture/retain power easier with money, than having to climb up inter-party politics.