I replied to the following: ↷

It depends on how you define wealth. If it's individualistic capital growth, then community bonding can't be a thing across classes. However, if it's focused on reducing the need to even have capital in each home (think virtually no cost for rent, food, water, power, services because of communal dues that reduce or eliminate the cost for people or an offset paid by those who are wealthier to reduce cost for all), then it'd run counter to the individualistic capital growth because it can't be kept for one person, it's forcibly used to reduce the cost for everyone.

Things like this can exist. From public Internet providers to cooperative housing and grocers—lived by all of this in West Oakland, mostly Black-owned too (which mattered a lot because these concepts aren't new to us historically).

by • posted archived copycurrent

To drill it home, https://bookshop.org/books/a-people-s-guide-to-capitalism-an-introduction-to-marxist-economics/9781642591699 speaks more about how the need of a focus for individualistic capital building runs to be the antithesis of strengthening communities.

posted with Quill in Everything

Shared to Twitter

Engagement is powered by Webmentions — a premier standard of the Web to let other sites know you've mentioned them. Learn how to reply from your own site. or from a supported silo Aaron has an interactive post about this. If you've mentioned this URL via another one, use the form below to submit it.

If you don't currently own your replies, then you can click below to do so.

I currently aim to own my comments and plan to eventually show those I've received once I finish Lighthouse.