The lower price would mean lower quality traditionally yes
No no no, it’s not lower quality, it’s just not luxury. It’s better than the $5 Hershey bars available to you in the US. This is not a law of economics, it’s a capitalist assumption. Lower prices can mean lower quality in for-profit contexts because companies cut costs to maximize profit. But in a nonprofit, state-run model, the goal is different: providing a high-quality public good at an accessible price. This is a de-commodification of a necessity or cultural staple. Chocolate in Mexico has deep indigenous and historical roots.
Then creating regulation as a governance is expected the lowest prices. Did they circumvent regulations, taxes, etc.
I don’t know, did they?
The insinuation here is that the government is cheating the system. But if the government is the one setting or adapting the regulations, this is not circumvention, it’s governance. State-run enterprises often don’t need to chase profit margins because their revenue model isn’t extractive.
HENCE, how could a capitalist compete
Correct, that’s the point. The state provides a baseline to protect people from price-gouging and artificial scarcity. Capitalists can compete, but they must add value, not by suppressing wages or cutting quality, but by genuine innovation or diversification.
This is similar to how public healthcare in many countries sets a baseline: if private healthcare wants to exist, it must offer more, not extract more.
Over extension of power leads to suppression of the workers, field owners, and consumers. With capitalism winning.
This is incoherent nonsense. Capitalism “winning” through the suppression of workers is not a bug; it’s a feature. State efforts to offer goods affordably often arise precisely to counteract capitalist suppression.
The idea that public chocolate production suppresses workers more than Nestlé or Hershey’s, companies with notorious labor violations, is laughable.
You have so little experience with the pain of the world that you can only dream your comforts.
That’s just a rhetorical grenade, you’re not engaging with what I said, you’re trying to discredit me personally. And honestly, it’s frustrating. You’re implying that lived suffering and collective solutions can’t go hand in hand, but that’s just not true. Some of the fiercest, most committed advocates for public goods come from deep struggle, especially across the Global South.
The hate was you focusing on the profiteers, and want was you focused on consumers. However the product must go from a to b. Then b to c. Etc. Workers are a key aspect of this process and most people ignore this.
Chocolate in mexico does have deep indigenous and historical roots. However this is not why it’s so big, it’s massive due to a bunch of exploitation of the region. It’s why Mexico has only sorta been at peace since the 1980s. I have studied greatly how white supremacists funded some of our state conflicts. Literally the KKK.
Anyways, you are too focused on the chocolate example when I never really talked about it. All I am saying is this is good, however I can also see it growing corrupt by forfeiting too much to the governance. Going back around from one capitalist structure to the next. State efforts to counteract start one way, I am saying they always end the same. Power corrupts.
Anyways, my point is the people will rise if they are suppressed. What goes up must come down, as above so below.
However, you have too much faith in governance, for yours has not taken from you humanity.
I appreciate you clarifying, there’s more we agree on than not.
You’re absolutely right to emphasize the role of workers in the chain. The process from A to B to C doesn’t function without their labor, and too often, they’re rendered invisible in both capitalist and state narratives. That’s a vital reminder. Any left project that doesn’t center workers, from land to factory to distribution, loses its soul. And you’re right: the roots of chocolate’s prominence today aren’t just cultural, they’re exploitative. The commodity’s journey is soaked in colonial extraction, and in many ways, that legacy persists.
Your mention of white supremacist funding and KKK ties to regional destabilization is important. I don’t doubt it. U.S. foreign policy, especially in Latin America, has long served as a tool for white capitalist expansion, from the School of the Americas to paramilitary support. That history deserves more light, not less.
Now, on the worry about corruption and state overreach, I hear you. The cycle you’re pointing to is real: revolutionary governments co-opted, bureaucracies bloated, the people once again crushed beneath a new elite. But here’s where we may differ: I don’t have blind faith in governance. I have faith in people. And that includes the right of people to shape their governments, to build horizontal structures of power, to hold any institution accountable, whether it wears a suit or a state badge.
Power can corrupt, but it also depends on how it’s held. When governance is democratized, truly democratized, not just through ballots but through councils, unions, communal ownership, it doesn’t have to recreate capitalist hierarchies. Projects like Zapatista autonomy in Chiapas or Rojava in Syria show that state and market aren’t the only models. People can create something else if they have the space.
Your closing line hits hard. Maybe I do have more faith than you in the potential of governance, not because mine hasn’t taken from me, but because I believe in reclaiming what it has. Governance should serve, not rule. If it rules, it’s time to resist. And if people rise when they’re suppressed, then so be it. I stand with them.
Cope better. There was no hate.
No no no, it’s not lower quality, it’s just not luxury. It’s better than the $5 Hershey bars available to you in the US. This is not a law of economics, it’s a capitalist assumption. Lower prices can mean lower quality in for-profit contexts because companies cut costs to maximize profit. But in a nonprofit, state-run model, the goal is different: providing a high-quality public good at an accessible price. This is a de-commodification of a necessity or cultural staple. Chocolate in Mexico has deep indigenous and historical roots.
I don’t know, did they?
The insinuation here is that the government is cheating the system. But if the government is the one setting or adapting the regulations, this is not circumvention, it’s governance. State-run enterprises often don’t need to chase profit margins because their revenue model isn’t extractive.
Correct, that’s the point. The state provides a baseline to protect people from price-gouging and artificial scarcity. Capitalists can compete, but they must add value, not by suppressing wages or cutting quality, but by genuine innovation or diversification.
This is similar to how public healthcare in many countries sets a baseline: if private healthcare wants to exist, it must offer more, not extract more.
This is incoherent nonsense. Capitalism “winning” through the suppression of workers is not a bug; it’s a feature. State efforts to offer goods affordably often arise precisely to counteract capitalist suppression.
The idea that public chocolate production suppresses workers more than Nestlé or Hershey’s, companies with notorious labor violations, is laughable.
That’s just a rhetorical grenade, you’re not engaging with what I said, you’re trying to discredit me personally. And honestly, it’s frustrating. You’re implying that lived suffering and collective solutions can’t go hand in hand, but that’s just not true. Some of the fiercest, most committed advocates for public goods come from deep struggle, especially across the Global South.
The hate was you focusing on the profiteers, and want was you focused on consumers. However the product must go from a to b. Then b to c. Etc. Workers are a key aspect of this process and most people ignore this.
Chocolate in mexico does have deep indigenous and historical roots. However this is not why it’s so big, it’s massive due to a bunch of exploitation of the region. It’s why Mexico has only sorta been at peace since the 1980s. I have studied greatly how white supremacists funded some of our state conflicts. Literally the KKK.
Anyways, you are too focused on the chocolate example when I never really talked about it. All I am saying is this is good, however I can also see it growing corrupt by forfeiting too much to the governance. Going back around from one capitalist structure to the next. State efforts to counteract start one way, I am saying they always end the same. Power corrupts.
Anyways, my point is the people will rise if they are suppressed. What goes up must come down, as above so below.
However, you have too much faith in governance, for yours has not taken from you humanity.
I appreciate you clarifying, there’s more we agree on than not.
You’re absolutely right to emphasize the role of workers in the chain. The process from A to B to C doesn’t function without their labor, and too often, they’re rendered invisible in both capitalist and state narratives. That’s a vital reminder. Any left project that doesn’t center workers, from land to factory to distribution, loses its soul. And you’re right: the roots of chocolate’s prominence today aren’t just cultural, they’re exploitative. The commodity’s journey is soaked in colonial extraction, and in many ways, that legacy persists.
Your mention of white supremacist funding and KKK ties to regional destabilization is important. I don’t doubt it. U.S. foreign policy, especially in Latin America, has long served as a tool for white capitalist expansion, from the School of the Americas to paramilitary support. That history deserves more light, not less.
Now, on the worry about corruption and state overreach, I hear you. The cycle you’re pointing to is real: revolutionary governments co-opted, bureaucracies bloated, the people once again crushed beneath a new elite. But here’s where we may differ: I don’t have blind faith in governance. I have faith in people. And that includes the right of people to shape their governments, to build horizontal structures of power, to hold any institution accountable, whether it wears a suit or a state badge.
Power can corrupt, but it also depends on how it’s held. When governance is democratized, truly democratized, not just through ballots but through councils, unions, communal ownership, it doesn’t have to recreate capitalist hierarchies. Projects like Zapatista autonomy in Chiapas or Rojava in Syria show that state and market aren’t the only models. People can create something else if they have the space.
Your closing line hits hard. Maybe I do have more faith than you in the potential of governance, not because mine hasn’t taken from me, but because I believe in reclaiming what it has. Governance should serve, not rule. If it rules, it’s time to resist. And if people rise when they’re suppressed, then so be it. I stand with them.