There is capitalism, but no competition


Between capitalism and technological progress today is a complex relationship. On the one hand, in the pursuit of profit, entrepreneurs increase labor productivity and thereby contribute to scientific and technological progress. On the other hand, growing productivity decreases the rate of return. The most important prerequisite for such a relationship is the competitive state of the market.


Why is there less and less free competition in the world around us? It turns out: there are capitalist relations, but there is no competition ...

Why does the big and the strong oppress the small and the weak, turn it into a resource for its own enrichment? Why, in a monopolized economy, are market incentives for competition undermined? What other methods of enrichment are the capitalists seeking? Why does capitalism hinder the development of scientific and technological progress?

The host of the Prime Program Oleg Komolov, in search of answers to the "capitalist puzzles," will try to answer these questions. In addition, the author of the plot will check how the indicator of the rate of profit in the long run actually behaves. To do this, he will take as an example the economy of the United States and determine the dynamics of profitability outside the financial sector over the past decade.

Photos used:
insider.zt.ua
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Pessimist22 24 January 2020 05: 42 New
    • 10
    • 6
    +4
    Well, up to the current scientific technological progress, it was precisely capitalism that promoted us, and not another system.
    1. Hunter 2 24 January 2020 06: 00 New
      • 9
      • 6
      +3
      Well, minuses from the socialists will fly now ... you would also write that war spurs inventors, pacifists will also connect laughing
      The conquest of markets and the promotion of their products by Powerful Corporations - kills competition. Small producers cannot resist the Giants, such are the realities of the Global Economy!
      1. Uncle lee 24 January 2020 06: 12 New
        • 11
        • 0
        +11
        There is no competition, but there is a corporate conspiracy! + greed of conspiracy.
      2. Pessimist22 24 January 2020 06: 35 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        I agree with you, the war gives a lot of technical progress, for example, laser guided missiles aimed at the target, and in civilian life I have a laser level, though it’s not domestic but the bourgeois GST / Berger.
        1. E_V_N 25 January 2020 21: 20 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Pessimist22
          I agree with you, the war gives a lot of technical progress


          Firstly, it’s not war, but preparation for war, the war itself discards both the victor and the vanquished in development.
          Secondly, even preparation for war slows down technological progress, as advanced technologies are classified.
          Thirdly, the arms race forces us to divert human, industrial, and raw materials to the creation of stockpiles of weapons that will never be used by 90% and will eventually rot or re-melt
          Stir your brains.
      3. Svarog 24 January 2020 07: 21 New
        • 12
        • 4
        +8
        Quote: Hunter 2
        The conquest of markets and the promotion of their products by Powerful Corporations - kills competition. Small producers cannot resist the Giants, such are the realities of the Global Economy!

        So it is .. Capitalism has reached the final form of its existence .. And from the competitive environment that spurred passionate people to action, capitalism has spilled over into huge corporations that prevent anyone but these corporations from developing ..
        In other words, capitalism has become obsolete .. The time has come for a more progressive ideology-socialism ...
        1. Hunter 2 24 January 2020 07: 46 New
          • 5
          • 5
          0
          Do you propose to re-create the world's first state of workers and peasants?
          What kind of socialism are you talking about? As where?
          Creating a Social State - What does not suit you personally?
          1. Svarog 24 January 2020 08: 38 New
            • 10
            • 6
            +4
            Quote: Hunter 2
            Creating a Social State - What does not suit you personally?

            The creation of a social state is quite fine with me. But it should not be in words but in deed. It is necessary to copy the model of the USSR, with amendments and taking into account errors .. In particular, you need to leave the opportunity to develop small and medium-sized businesses. All natural resources, large-scale industry, the energy sector, alcohol, all this should be completely under state control. If briefly. But in general, my vision completely coincides with N.N Platoshkin.
            1. 2 Level Advisor 24 January 2020 08: 44 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              Well, if I understand you correctly, are you talking about the "Scandinavian" model?
              1. Svarog 24 January 2020 08: 57 New
                • 10
                • 5
                +5
                Quote: 2 level advisor
                Well, if I understand you correctly, are you talking about the "Scandinavian" model?

                Yes, the Scandinavian model will quite suit me. It is important that any model has the opportunity for development. Socialism has great development opportunities and potential, and capitalism has outlived itself.
              2. Maki Avellevich 25 January 2020 21: 37 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: 2 level advisor
                Well, if I understand you correctly, are you talking about the "Scandinavian" model?

                Scandinavian model works in Scandinavia. other nations have their own systems.
            2. Reptiloid 25 January 2020 10: 55 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Svarog
              Quote: Hunter 2
              Creating a Social State - What does not suit you personally?

              The creation of a social state is quite fine with me. ........
              Good morning, hi dear! Since the creation of the welfare state was proclaimed after the destruction of the USSR, social programs continue to decline. The first thing that comes to mind --- there is no free housing, a reduction in medical free activities, pension reform.
            3. your1970 25 January 2020 20: 59 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Svarog
              In particular, you need to leave the opportunity to develop small and medium business. All natural resources, large-scale industry, the energy sector, alcohol, all this should be completely under state control.
              - great!!
              but here’s the problem — for example, alcohol — the state produces it according to your model at some basic price. But then there’s a reseller who will give grandmas to the head — so that he sells this alcohol using some kind of workaround technology (marriage, substandard, shrinkage , utruska, etc.) is cheaper to small / medium (absolutely unimportant !!) business ... the goods produced by this small one will become cheaper than others ...
              tomorrow another / third / fifth entrepreneur with the same dough will come
              And then what? And then simply - as the director NOT the owner and in addition to the premiums (and they can’t be big!) doesn’t shine for him - he will begin to steal and shove the maximum of goods to the left.
              It will light up and organs will come to it (apparently OBHSS lol !!! socialism and "socialist property" ...) - for the "small fraction". From them the share will go up and from it by the way, too (theft will have to be covered !!)
              And we will have exactly the same as now - but with the name "socialist economy"

              If someone doubts that it will be so - it will be so, it was already in the USSR. He was mentioned many times in feuilleton, the journal "Man and the Law", films and books. for instance
              “Case No. 16“ From the Life of Fruits ”Victor Turbin Olga and Alexander Lavrov November 14, 1981
              Major Znamensky is included in the group of the People’s Control Committee investigating numerous cases of abuse at the fruit and vegetable base, which is led by Antonina Mikhailovna Chugunnikova. Representatives of the group find that the loss of several trucks of vegetables - ordinary phenomenon on the base. Znamensky searching three cars with tomatoes that disappeared without a trace realizes very quickly that he was faced with prevailing criminal gang, which, using the objective difficulties of accounting and the imperfection of the control system, deals with systematic theft on an especially large scale."

              Only in the USSR it was practically impossible to export goods or legalize big money, precisely because there was no small, much less medium-sized business ....
              And now it will be like two fingers ...
              And given the changing psychology of the people - it will be much easier than then ...

              On this, the "small and medium" will have to be curtailed - as the NEP was curtailed at the time precisely for the same reason ("decomposition of the control apparatus" !!!).
              1. lucul 25 January 2020 21: 07 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                And we will have exactly the same as now - but with the name "socialist economy"

                No need to juggle - according to your logic - then the police are not needed - the criminal can always give a cop on his paw and he will let him go, because the cop works for a simple salary ...
                1. your1970 25 January 2020 21: 36 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: lucul
                  No need to juggle - according to your logic
                  -You could not refute me in any letter ...

                  we know, God forbid, about one case out of thousands of such thefts - there could be millions of them.

                  Even in our small town, the head of the State Bank stole more than 75 thousand in 1981-83. She faked statements on the transfer of salary money to organizations. Grandmother was invited as a specialist (she worked as chief accountant all her life) - so she said that she had been trivially cut and pasted on old statements (instead of "1971" became "1981"). No one else was imprisoned belay belay lol for this period (from 1981 to 1985 - when everything got out) as my grandmother said 3 (three !!!!) revisions. So no one noticed that the money left went ....
                2. evgen1221 31 March 2020 03: 58 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And obkhss to this first private trader with suspiciously large volumes and low prices will not come? In my opinion, this will end the whole scheme, provided that the moral intolerance of society towards dishonest profit will be supported by propaganda and deeds.
              2. E_V_N 25 January 2020 23: 02 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                You
                Quote: your1970
                but here’s the problem — for example, alcohol — the state produces it according to your model at some basic price. But then there’s a reseller who will give grandmas to the head — so that he sells this alcohol using some kind of workaround technology (marriage, substandard, shrinkage , utruska, etc.) is cheaper to small / medium (absolutely unimportant !!) business ... the goods produced by this small one will become cheaper than others ...

                You would also remember about stone axes, and calculations on wooden accounts.
                Believe me, from the time of the USSR, accounting and control technologies have changed a lot. Now, with the due desire of the state, even a fly without flying will not fly by. And production and cash flow can be accounted for up to a gram and a penny.
                The whole question is the desire of the state and government.
                1. your1970 26 January 2020 14: 32 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: E_V_N
                  Believe me, from the time of the USSR, accounting and control technologies have changed a lot.

                  Quote: E_V_N
                  And production and cash flow can be accounted for up to a gram and a penny.

                  Quote: E_V_N
                  The whole question is the desire of the state and government.

                  And then the control system was quite tough, but:
                  1) they stole quite easily and naturally even under Stalin (see, for example, embezzlement at the post offices in 1934 or linden military unit). In later times, they stole even at refineries with an extremely strict gold and platinum accounting system.
                  2) control is now strong ... Eastern, no?
                  3) the most important thing is that you will have to tighten control many times over small businesses. And this is the "folding of the NEP" .... because risk will always be needed - and it is necessary for the regulatory authorities ??? Does he know then what he will graduate from - this business ???? A banal example - the Plato system forced to pay small carriers at least something.
                  Overhead costs increased by 0,3% - carriers raised prices from 0,5 to 45% (!!!!!!!), without a hint of any reason- "Plato Mrs strangles us !!"
                  Moreover, even those who DO NOT pay at all squeal and raise the price .... Plato ....
          2. solzh 24 January 2020 10: 37 New
            • 6
            • 5
            +1
            Quote: Hunter 2
            Creating a Social State - What does not suit you personally?

            A social state like Scandinavia? Thank you, but somehow I do not want to live among sodomites with a lack of family values.
            Quote: Hunter 2
            Do you propose to re-create the world's first state of workers and peasants?

            Yes, it is the Soviet state! Only it can bring our country to a new economic and social level (without sodomism) of development. It is the Soviet system and no other.
            1. Lexus 24 January 2020 16: 08 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Yes, it is the Soviet state! Only it can bring our country to a new economic and social level (without sodomism) of development. It is the Soviet system and no other.

              Here I am talking about too. Capitalism is when rams are driven into a stall, to which wolves dictate the rules. The result is obvious and logical. The top of stupidity is that the bear also decided to abide by these canons and became a toothless vegetarian, in fact the same sheep that they now also eat. As long as this continues, the fate of the clubfoot is predictable and unenviable.
              Who benefits from this? Parasites settled in the tramp, which, as necessary and in different ways, willingly move into wolves and other sheep. It makes no difference to them on whom to parasitize. Even if the bear dies or is eaten, they will always find a “warm place” for themselves.
              This is what needs to be clearly understood about the essence of capitalism and globalists.
              1. Maki Avellevich 25 January 2020 21: 40 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: lexus
                Capitalism is when rams are driven into a stall, to which wolves dictate the rules.

                capitalism, socialism, Maoism, Jamahiriya (ersatz anarchy in Libyan style) and any social system means:
                a minority rules the majority.
                if you want the first of the equals rule the equals. from latin primus inter pares
                no other is given.
        2. Maki Avellevich 25 January 2020 21: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Svarog
          And from the competitive environment that spurred passionate people to action, capitalism has spilled over into huge corporations that prevent anyone but these corporations from developing ..
          In other words, capitalism has become obsolete .. The time has come for a more progressive ideology-socialism ...

          you are a little mistaken.
          competitive environment -> paiaionary people -> progress -> huge corporations -> stagnation -> collapse of the system -> the appearance of the same competitive environment and passionate people
      4. E_V_N 25 January 2020 21: 24 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Hunter 2
        Small producers cannot resist the Giants, such are the realities of the Global Economy!

        Well, in fact, the USSR was a global corporation controlled from a single center. The problem was that in the first place was not the economy and welfare of the population, but the ideological dogmas of the last century.
    2. Svarog 24 January 2020 07: 14 New
      • 11
      • 7
      +4
      Quote: Pessimist22
      Well, up to the current scientific technological progress, it was precisely capitalism that promoted us, and not another system.

      What kind of scientific progress is this? All the progress that we have is just created in the USSR and thanks to socialism we have it ..
      1. rocket757 24 January 2020 08: 07 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        There is an info "war" .... the current, dominant \ reigning more, more opportunities to self-praise! BUT, nothing happens forever and it is ETERNAL, it is necessary to constantly push ....
        1. Reptiloid 25 January 2020 11: 08 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: rocket757
          There is an info "war" .... the current, dominant \ reigning more, more opportunities to self-praise! BUT ....
          fellow hi Greetings, Victor! CAPITACLISM ---- competition! "" The current, dominant "" seek to reduce the number of its competitors, somehow the Highlander remembered ..... there will be only one! And so became the most important striped ....
          Ours did not think that, although the country is socialist and there are others, the world is still capital-enema and lives by these laws am
          1. rocket757 25 January 2020 11: 13 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Hi Dmitry soldier
            He always claimed that the capitalist elite is under this world!
            They have each other, different fuss is on, this is true, but if someone is fundamentally against them all, they will unite and will press together.
            There can be no other.
            1. Reptiloid 25 January 2020 11: 27 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: rocket757
              ....... They have each other, different fuss is on, this is true, but if someone is fundamentally against them all, they will unite and will press together ......
              Naturally, this is the competition, ----- Yugoslavia, at that time it was in some ways a competitor + location (who owns the Balkans --- owns Europe), Iraq, Libya, ....
              Now we are watching how the striped try to trample Europe .....
              1. rocket757 25 January 2020 12: 42 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Many of the most, most have settled in the stripes!
                They will trample on everyone and anyone who allows them to do this.
                1. Reptiloid 25 January 2020 13: 11 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: rocket757
                  Many of the most, most have settled in the stripes!
                  They will trample on everyone and anyone who allows them to do this.

                  But someone already and the partners they loved have trampled am and they will trample someone else am
                  1. rocket757 25 January 2020 13: 20 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Okay, let’s flounder yourself .... we need to do our business. For us, for the country ....
            2. E_V_N 25 January 2020 21: 35 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: rocket757
              He always claimed that the capitalist elite is under this world!

              Come on, what is such a "capitalist world for yourself"? The "Capitalist elite" does not have and did not have a homeland or a flag; they easily change their faith and citizenship well, where their capital is warm. Unfortunately, the world is already too small, and the elites together are crushing not those who are against, but who can compete with them, real or imagined.
      2. Pessimist22 24 January 2020 10: 38 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        Svarog
        Please clarify who has and whom they have thanks to socialism?
  2. Far B 24 January 2020 06: 09 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    Why, in a monopolized economy, are market incentives for competition undermined?
    Weird question. Because the monopoly, in principle, cannot have competitors, which means that it individually orders music and dances the girl. Americans, by the way, realized this the year before last, when they disassembled their Standard Oil. Unfortunately, now there are such “standard” cars and a small trolley in different industries. TNC is called.
  3. Ross xnumx 24 January 2020 06: 19 New
    • 7
    • 4
    +3
    There is capitalism, but no competition

    There is no capitalism in Russia, for so many productive forces in a country cannot be a source of profit.
    In Russia, the development of a speculative process continues with the involvement of government agencies. And the emergence of capital after repeated resale provides us only with rampant inflation growth and economic growth in the amount of statistical error.
    1. Mcar 24 January 2020 09: 10 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: ROSS 42
      There is no capitalism in Russia, for so many productive forces in a country cannot be a source of profit.

      Is it really so? And here is another suggestion - they say that capitalism is wrong with us, it is necessary to build the right one and then we will live.

      Does the Russian Federation have private means of production, including everything that replaces them? If there is - leave doubt - capitalism. Well, the fact that the capitalisms of different countries are different is normal. In nature, there are a lot of different predators. The lion is very different from the fox. But both are predators.
      1. Reptiloid 25 January 2020 11: 17 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Good morning, Alexander! Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think so that captive enemas of other developed countries were formed at a completely different time, there was no such experience, such a theory and such dimensions (in those countries).
        Russian modern capitalism — it in modern realities with other possibilities and will not become different, unless it is toughened even stronger.
        1. Mcar 25 January 2020 12: 22 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Greetings, Dmitry!

          Quote: Reptiloid
          Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think so that captive enemas of other developed countries were formed at a completely different time, there was no such experience, such a theory and such dimensions (in those countries).

          You are not mistaken.

          In other countries, capitalism developed gradually, but in our country instantly (by historical standards). This has not happened in history so that, on such a scale — the second economy of the world — ownership of the means of production is, in fact, distributed. Remember - strike the iron while Gorbachev. The same Poland received 30 times more money from privatization. Ponder and compare the scale: Poland and Russia (!), 30 times (!) - but in a good way it should be the other way around.

          That's why our predator, read capitalism, is so different from many others. He behaves not as a master, but as a thief - he is a thief, since privatization has been and remains theft from society. From that and abroad everyone keeps - money, children, real estate, alternate aerodromes(C).
          1. Reptiloid 25 January 2020 13: 01 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Well yes! Well yes! If the foreign families of billionaires say how they created their empires from 0, are proud of their most ancestral ancestors, who have come up with something, invented something, then ours will not be proud. True, some deputy said that they did themselves and what good fellows, such as ..... and I remember the masterpiece phrase, how the EP burnt all ....
    2. solzh 24 January 2020 10: 40 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Quote: ROSS 42
      There is capitalism, but no competition

      There is no capitalism in Russia, for so many productive forces in a country cannot be a source of profit.
      In Russia, the development of a speculative process continues with the involvement of government agencies. And the emergence of capital after repeated resale provides us only with rampant inflation growth and economic growth in the amount of statistical error.

      good hi
      Do not add, do not diminish. Everything is correctly said in your comment.
  4. rocket757 24 January 2020 08: 03 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Why is there less and less free competition in the world around us? It turns out: there are capitalist relations, but there is no competition ...

    But has the market already leveled everything? Capitalism has nowhere else to "develop"?
    Interesno.
    1. Mcar 24 January 2020 09: 04 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: rocket757
      Why is there less and less free competition in the world around us? It turns out: there are capitalist relations, but there is no competition ...

      But has the market already leveled everything? Capitalism has nowhere else to "develop"?
      Interesno.

      It seems to me yes - nowhere. No, of course, if by "development" we mean the natural for developed capitalism - war, then for "development" the field is still not plowed.

      Competition ultimately leads to monopoly. A monopoly on dictatorship. Total. Quality, price, motion vector - everything, in short.
      1. rocket757 24 January 2020 10: 22 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: McAr
        if by "development" we understand the natural for developed capitalism - war,

        No, no, we didn’t order this, it’s not everything and everywhere it goes peacefully.
        Competition ultimately leads to monopoly. A monopoly on dictatorship. Total. Quality, price, motion vector - everything, in short.

        Obvious and very probable .... we didn’t order this either ... I don’t want to add what’s necessary stop
  5. dgonni 24 January 2020 21: 31 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    According to the presenter. There is no competition around the monopoly and skorokayuk states because the rate of profit somehow does not correlate with his worldview and knowledge.
    Although Musk and other private traders from aerospace companies somehow do not really dry the author and cheerfully gnaw at space and innovative technologies.
  6. E_V_N 25 January 2020 21: 53 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: McAr
    In other countries, capitalism developed gradually, but in our country instantly (by historical standards)

    You are right and not right at the same time. I must say that "in other countries" the means of production were created by generations and inherited. And in our country the means of production simply rang out "by acquaintance." And the simple distribution of the means of production into private hands does not make the economy really capitalistic, since often the privatizers do not have a clue what to do with this production and let it go under the knife. Therefore, only the state and pseudo-state sectors move in our country, often living not at the expense of our own production, but eating from the state budget through bad loans, infrastructure projects and state programs.
  7. E_V_N 26 January 2020 23: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: your1970
    And then the control system was quite tough, but:
    1) they stole quite easily and naturally even under Stalin (see, for example, embezzlement at the post offices in 1934 or linden military unit). In later times, they stole even at refineries with an extremely strict gold and platinum accounting system.

    Well, yes, on accounts with wooden bones and on paper reports, they conducted tight control. do not make me laugh.
    You idealize Stalin as a crime fighter. They stole before Stalin and under Stalin and after Stalin, but the point is not in the fact of the existence of crime, but in the fact that they fought against crimes under Stalin regardless of their posts and past merits. Before Stalin and after Stalin there is a "caste of the untouchables" who either do not bear responsibility for crimes at all or get off "I threatened my finger with my finger." This is especially evident now.
    Well, about the control. There is a technical possibility of global control, control is gradually getting tougher, so there is no desire to draw conclusions from the revealed facts of theft regardless of faces.
  8. place 28 February 2020 11: 24 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    When instead of logic, there are only common cliches and fashionable stereotypes, in general, everything becomes incomprehensible. Books should still be read, even if the authors are not fashionable!

    As far back as the 19th century, Engels wrote of an unprecedented concentration of capital that destroys any competition, even now foolish from head to toe, “grandfather Lenin” argued that under modern capitalism, any competition, any private property of a small or medium owner is simply trampled on like never before earlier in history.
    And here in the 21st century, BAM - DISCOVERY - NEM COMPETITIONS!
  9. Dmitry Leontiev 19 March 2020 07: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Because competition is not profitable for the capitalist - it deprives him of the super-profits that are possible if he is a monopolist. With free access to the market for anyone, the capitalist loses both on the outflow of customers and the outflow of labor. At the same time, he must give the workers and buyers of the goods they produce to them more favorable prices for them — both goods and labor — otherwise they will leave him for those who offer more fair prices. Therefore, it is simply profitable for a capitalist, using the capital stolen from the people, to buy an administrative resource (or crime) in order to get rid of competitors by any means — it is beneficial to be a monopolist who can both inflate the prices of goods for people put in a hopeless situation and pay a penny to those who are forced to work for him in an environment where there is no other job (that is, competing enterprises). This illustrates the situation with small business in Russia as well as possible.

    Therefore, the market should be free. And this concept, of course, does not imply the freedom of the monopolist to eliminate competitors, but the strictly enforced freedom of access to the market of anyone, the freedom of the market from monopolists.


    Conclusion: Reason needs an anti-oligarchic limit on personal incomes and fortunes (no more than seven times their usual, most common level across the entire working population). Nothing will come of it without it.

    Ordinary, unlimited capitalism - in which there is no strict legislative restriction on the size of capital possessed - it simply means that one robber receives what many people created with his labor costs, and this many remains with nothing. Moreover, this robber receives not only funds, but also the shadow, not elected by the population, real political power that these funds give him - and uses this power for further, even worse robbery of all surrounding people in any rights, means and opportunities - for gaining over society even greater own political power. That is, it is a system of direct, outright and total robbery of the population. The word "Robbery" is a direct and unambiguous definition of this system, its direct name. Is robbery (in any means, rights and opportunities) not a universally recognized and unambiguous crime? Is there any subject here for any discussion?

    Elementary logic suggests that in order to exclude this total robbery and no less total political power of robbers, a tough legislative anti-oligarchic limit is required for all people on the maximum amount of personal incomes and fortunes - which in no way can be more than seven times their most common level the entire working population; for funds exceeding it, in any case, are not earned by the individual’s own labor, but are funds created by the labor costs of other people — and, accordingly, are due to other people. Everything that exceeds this limit should automatically be nationalized - go to the common piggy bank. And compliance with this law should be ensured by the most serious responsibility for its violation - the greater, the larger the amount of hidden income or wealth.

    To stop the oligarchy (that is, direct robbery and the power of robbers) the whole society needs to unite under this simple requirement - the introduction of a strict anti-oligarchic limit. This limit is an obvious and absolutely necessary element of the political security of the system and the social security of the population. And if the population is interested in the political and social adequacy of the system, it must demand the adoption of this anti-oligarchic limit.

    https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4t7w/gXT492EyR

    (file: "005 On Capitalism and its Inadmissibility").