[somethingAlex]

People seem to invoke the word capitalism whenever things aren't a utopia for everyone involved. Still, even without capitalism, you'll have to contend with the issue of how to cover operational expenses. Say some, more centralized, agent decides YouTube is worthwhile - how would it get paid for? A state sponsorship made possible by a tax of some sort? Perhaps it would transition to be completely pay-to-play?

The employees and servers are expending real energy keeping YouTube operational. Meaning, whether it's through ads, a more centralized body stepping in, or some other less pervasive, opt-in business model - the thing needs to cover its own costs. I don't think a lack of private property would solve much there.

[Atlas667]

The contradiction of the capitalist mode of production is not that it tries to cover its costs. That is necessary in any system of trade/production.

The problem is using social services to generate capital. A public good for private interests is wrought with contradictions. And, as you can see, covering costs =/= generating capital.

Not even mentioning that the mode continuously works to undermine itself in making production more efficient by developing technology and driving down prices but profits as a whole too.

[y4mi]

> Still, even without capitalism, you'll have to contend with the issue of how to cover operational expenses

You're still thinking in the framework of capitalism.

Let me be clear that I think that doing anything but capitalism is bound to fail while we're living in a resource restricted reality.

Nonetheless, if we want to think about it for arguments sake: there are no costs associated without capitalism, only necessary work and resources. It's really hard to think without the restrictions of capitalism for me, because that's the only way I've ever experienced and it's so effective at prioritizing resources and productivity. Anything else has historically always fallen short.

Though it's still a pretty fucked up and heartless system

[xboxnolifes]

> Nonetheless, if we want to think about it for arguments sake: there are no costs associated without capitalism, only necessary work and resources.

That's just redefining the term costs to not include work and resources. The term resources alone makes up nearly every operational cost possible: time, man power, CPU power, metals, environment, ...

Capitalism has nothing to with defining what something costs, it has everything to do with resource ownership and its distribution.

[nybble41]

> Nonetheless, if we want to think about it for arguments sake: there are no costs associated without capitalism, only necessary work and resources.

"Necessary work and resources" is exactly what is meant by costs. Scarcity is a property of the universe we live in. Capitalism doesn't prescribe or create scarcity, it just offers a framework for dealing with it. All other systems also have costs and operational expenses—they just aren't borne primarily by those making the decisions.