And man does not acquire the means of production by propertyless labor-power alone, either.
You're the one that has a problem with that. I'm a proprietarian.
: He who has the gold makes the rules or he who has the power does.
True. Communists plan to change that.
Sure, SOME exceptional individuals break out of the paradigm (and their stories glut the media)---but MOST 'success stories' are born into surroundings that ENGENDER success. And BIRTH, the last I heard, IS a lottery...
: Bald assertion.
: Birth is a lootery. You're born, you get looted.
That the profit motive prevents, say, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE (which ALL people need) while cranking out, say, illimitable PERSONAL COMPUTERS (which essentially benefits business) because there's more dollars to be had in making computers.
: The production of computers and bits are largely unregulated.
I know. That's why monopolists like Gates were able to fleece the public---after most of that technology was PAID FOR by taxpayers...
: You do know that health care is heavily subsidized and regulated, don't you?
To protect the private ownership a nd profits of medical care, yes.
: I would suggest that the ability of Anyman to hang out his shingle has a lot to do with it.
First you've got to go through the AMA.
The lure of riches precedes and drives the mode of production. It even follows it thru the distribution channels. The feedback from the latter results in more, less or zero production.
Say it three times if you want but that's still untrue.
: You snipped the part earlier about the fuel, i.e. profits that stoke the fire.
Say ot FOUR times and it's still NOT TRUE.
Profits come AFTER the production process, not before.
Labor comes first.
Capitalists ANTICIPATE profits, sure, and that motivates them. Yet capitalists know enough about what's going on to make sure they get some LABORERS first in order to 'make' those profits.
Xerox prevented people from having personal computers IN THE 1970s because they were afraid that the 'paperless office' would wreck their copy sales...
: Of course, the SWParadise would have 'disallowed' this market failure in some as yet unknown manner, eh?
Those computers might have reached people ten years EARLIER in a socialist state.
No one's 'capital' (in a socialist economy) would be made obsolete by a new technology coming forth. The investment of old technology (fixed capital, which has an average life of ten years) would be made obsolete by new technolgy---and the PEOPLE would decide whether or not to take the plunge on the new technology (instead of a capitalist minority making that decision).
Look, the capitalist state taxes people mainly in order to dole out countless BUSINESS SUBSIDIES and to 'protect' overseas holdings for corporations...
: : At least we can agree on rejecting THAT---eh?
: Sans doute, mon vieux, sans doute...and all the other Grand Plans for my life. But subsidies are granted to those who deliver the vote.
Meaning 'campaign contributions'...
: Business subsidies are only a part and after all, it's my money.
Not when the corporations receive it from their collection agent, the government...
: I have better plans for it than any other slug could possibly dream up.
Are you a tax resister, borg?