this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
401 points (98.5% liked)

Canada

8131 readers
1948 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This Black History Month, it’s important to recognize that economic injustice—both in Canada and around the world—is deeply rooted in racism. The property system in Canada was founded on the forced displacement and exclusion of Indigenous peoples from their land and immigration policies that prevented non-white immigration, effectively barring many thousands of people from accessing property in Canada. These racialized colonial systems laid the foundation for the current racial wealth gap, where racialized Canadians have about half as much wealth as their non-racialized counterparts.

Unlike the United States, where constitutional barriers have historically shielded the ultra-rich from direct taxation, Canada faces no such constitutional legal obstacles—only political ones. And those political excuses are running out.

A wealth tax enjoys overwhelming public support. Nearly 90 percent of Canadians back it, yet successive Liberal and Conservative governments have refused to act. Their refusal isn’t due to legal constraints but to the immense influence of corporate lobbyists and billionaire donors who oppose any effort to make them pay their fair share.

Just last year, powerful corporate interests mobilized to kill a progressive tax measure that would have primarily targeted Canada’s wealthiest citizens and corporations: the partial closure of the capital gains loophole.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Capitalism does not inherently specify that 5 fat old cucks should own everything.

The system created by the rich does that. If capital was decentralized, i bet we would have a lot less social issues.

[–] theacharnian 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Capitalism doesn't "specify" anything, it's a mode of production characterized by the private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of labour.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's the infrastructure we have been left with historically. We also know that radical revolution that replaced with old systems with novel systems did not work out either. USSR failed, China backtracked on "the private ownership of the means of production.

Also. Labour was exploited under all and every system to ever exist that support civilization grade societies. There is nothing inherently exploitation of the labour about "capitalism", that comes from power structure and regime being degenerates goons who hate common people.

Decentralizing private ownership would weaken the exploitation of labour since it is a lot harder to fuck over somebody all the time if they got resources and agency to fight back OR opt out.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Exploitation is the key term here. Things like Co-ops and Crown corporations work to put capital back in the hands of the workers/customers/tax payers, but they can have a hard time competing with private industry. People like the idea of supporting local/sustainable/family owned/etc. but budgets are tight and Walmart or Loblaws fill your grocery cart for 10% less than the local Co-op. This all snowballs, the chains can pay less because they’ve got more positions to fill, they keep things cheap through economy of scale or negotiating power and keep that scale because they’re a bit cheaper then the socially responsible options. People work for the chains because there’s not enough jobs available at the local stores and they can only afford to shop at the chain because they’re being paid chain wages. If we could get enough people together we could enact a change, but that’s hard to do when so much of the population is one missed paycheque away from not being able to pay rent or groceries.

That kind of leaves regulatory or Crown-corps as the better solutions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago

We can't walmarts the grocery store but we can all avoid McDonald's...

It ain't much but that's a start and something everyone can do today.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Capital abhors decentralization and always works towards centralization and monopolization.

That means 5 people owning everything on a long enough time scale. Then 4, then 3, etc.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Capital is a tool fundamentally i know we collectively have label modern aristocracy as capital but that's because we can't envision a world where we all own a proper share of country's economy and have it pass through generations.

I think closest concept people can understand is "middle class" aint people who had some assets that insulted them from ups and downs of the clown economy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

We literally can't share the economy under capitalism. Capitalism is a tool, but it's a tool limited by its purpose.

Just like you can't use a hammer to solder a circuit board, you can't use capitalism to create a sharing economy.