• 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I see it more as a subsidy, the startup with more capital manages to kill its competition (if any) due to them being subsidized by venture capitalists and can operate with negative margins, and they turn predatory once they have aquired a monopoly share.

    You know how they complain about “ccp subsidies”, well venture capitalists are pretty much doing exactly that.

    • amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Most of that makes sense to me, though I’d think the nature of a socialist government giving a subsidy is going to be pretty different than venture capitalists, since the socialist government will not be wanting to extract value for a minority ruling class. That’s where the mafia analogy more comes in for me, is the nature of it not having any kind of intrinsically supportive motive in the capitalist case; there’s a “catch” and someone is probably going to suffer at some point to fulfill that. Whereas with the socialist structure subsidy comparison, if there were any “catch”, it would be more like “this better bring value to society” or “this better not be trying to bring down our socialist government”. So while the impact in a competitive space might be similar, the outcome should be pretty different for the customer / end user / whatever you want to call them.

      I’d also say the socialist case is more incidentally competitive, in that it bypasses the problems of capitalist funding precisely because it’s willing to do things for the sake of something other than profit (operating at a “loss” isn’t necessarily perceived as a “loss”). Versus the capitalist, such behavior can only ever be considered temporarily valuable for the longer term payout.