919
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Hanabie@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

It's not regulated properly, that's the problem

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 26 points 1 year ago

But those regulations are constantly labeled as "anticapitalist" -- because they are.

Why is it so wrong to poke at the inner workings of capitalism? Why must it be infallible?

[-] BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 year ago

Because the people benefiting from its brokenness aren't ready to stop salting the earth for numbers.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

...I think you may have misread my comment.

I'm saying it's broken and asking why it should be accepted as infallible.

[-] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 year ago

I thought they were just agreeing with you, FWIW

[-] BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

You're right - but I can see how the tone was interpreted as oppositional, I could have worded it differently to direct that more clearly. No harm afaik, lol.

[-] Hanabie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Capitalism really is trading goods for currency, and allowing lending and investment. What's going on though, with unchecked companies and laughable fines, ruins the whole thing. In its current state, capitalism will be our undoing, but with proper laws, regulations and oversight, it could work.

The problem is, corps have grown too powerful already and can blackmail governments. It's like other models that could work in theory, but never benefit the people in the end. Communism tends to lead to tyranny, for example.

People are just really shit at designing and running big societies.

[-] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago

Capitalism isn't trading good for/with currency though. Socialist and Communist societies would still use currency as it is a lot easier than bartering everything. And in Socialists society, you can still have lending and investments.

Capitalism is the means of production and trade owned by private entities (be it a person or a corporation) to make profits.

You are right though, inevitably, capitalism leads to consolidation and monopolies which we see today.

[-] Imotali@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

This "barter" economy as a primary means of exchange never existed. It's a myth and a lie created by capitalists (actually by one Adam Smith) trying to rationalize the adoption of coinage and currency in ancient civilization.

In fact barter economies tend to arise predominantly in capitalism during periods of economic instability. Ie: after natural disasters, in war torn countries, etc.

The proper term you are looking for is "gift economy" and it is how the world worked before capitalism. I want something from you so you gift it to me with the implicit understanding that if in the future the roles are reversed I give something to you of relatively equal perceived value.

It was actually pretty rare that gifts were paid back in full in one transaction and often larger gifts were paid back through a series of transactions.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

TIL that during the 16th to 19th centuries the aristocrats benefited from a "gift economy" because no one who ever says this knows what Mercantilism was.

[-] Imotali@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Where did I mention the 16th or 19th centuries? And mercantilism was 100% not a barter economy. It was a form of market economy controlled by the state.... so I'm pretty sure it's you who misunderstands what mercantilism is.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Mercantilism was purely extractive, and thus completely immoral, I agree. However, trade does predate capitalism because capitalism was not a nominal economic system at the time and mercantilist countries traded with one another.

[-] Imotali@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Trade is not barter. And if it involved coinage or it isn't barter. It's a form of market economy.

Market Economy ≠ Barter

[-] Hanabie@sh.itjust.works -5 points 1 year ago

Trading with currency is the basis for capitalism. Capitalism is lending/investing. When you don't have any actual wares at hand, but currency, virtual value, you trade for higher future virtual value.

[-] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

You could barter cows and still be in a capitalistic society. It just wouldn't be

Currency is just a way to simplify a transaction. I have a cow thatis valued at 100$. I get 100$ that I then spend on whatever. I don't need to trade a cow for a 100 eggs, then keep 10 eggs and trade for butters.

Lending isn't inherently capitalistic. I can lend a 100$ to my friend to start a business and he gives me back a 100$ after a time, no interest.

[-] MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Communism is when the government steals your cows and gives you back the milk as rations.

Capitalism is when you have somebody milk the cow for you and then you sell the milk and get rich and everyone calls you Mr Milkman the Millionaire.

As you can see capitalism is a much preferable system.

[-] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Colonial America enters the chat

let me bootstrap our national bank by using slaves a collateral.

[-] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Capitalism really is trading goods for currency, and allowing lending and investment.

That's commerce. Commerce predates capitalism, by a lot.

Capitalism also involves other things that go beyond basic commerce, such as systems of property law to incorporate quasi-sovereignty to capital ownership. That's more or less where we get the default model of businesses as de facto dictatorships ruled by the owner, vs. being democracies organized by stakeholders or participants. It's a big, deep subject that's unfortunately talked about in reductionist terms a lot. It's probably not helpful that a lot of early (and recent) scholarship on capitalism seems to frame itself as revelation of the nature of capital and markets, as if capital and markets are natural forces and not man-made things.

This last bit- treating capital and economics as if they were laws of nature (instead of being contrived by men)- does a lot of work to obfuscate fundamental systems of power, which in turn helps keep that power unaccountable. One major source of tension between capitalism and socialism has to do with whether the sovereignty of ownership ought to be democratized or subject to democratic accountabilities.

Some examples of being subject to democratic authority is basic labor protections, the 40 hour work week, safety regulations- if the voters impose on employers the requirement that employers provide a safe working environment, it's a counterweight to the general notion that owning the business makes one king of everything in that sphere- that is, it subordinates capital to the authority of the polity in which it operates.

[-] bobman@unilem.org 2 points 1 year ago

I don't think you understand how concentrated power causes society to serve the few over the many.

As long as the disparity in wealth (power) grows, more people are incentivized to serve fewer. It's why we see the government controlled by the wealthy. It will always be this way (and get worse) so long as the disparity in wealth continues to grow.

This is by design.

[-] Robaque@feddit.it 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Regulation and reform isn't anti-capitalist though.

"Real" anti-capitalism lies in the realisation that this system cannot be reformed, the status quo must be dismantled if we ever want to move past it and truly work towards values of freedom and equality.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

That distinction would be a hard sell for most capitalists I know. Regulation itself is seen as tampering with the "free market", and therefore anticapitalist.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Capitalism isn't infallible. Externalities to capitalism are well-understood.

The problem is that the particular criticism being leveled there is nonsensical. We don't live within a finite system. New avenues of growth are constantly appearing, in both "typical" production methods and, most especially, service sector.

The idea that capitalism even requires infinite "growth" is problematic because "growth" is indefinable in the way this criticism is being leveled.

To add on, this criticism is generally leveled by "de-growth" elements of socialists/communists, who also cannot explain why those systems don't also require "growth" to provide for increasing numbers of people or how "growth" can be offset aside from simply not providing enough resources for people, which has unpleasant undertones.

[-] Shadywack@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You're splitting hairs about what people call growth when the term is used most commonly to refer to the ROI and the issue with sustainable business. A perfectly sustainable business is viewed unfavorably if it doesn't generate increased revenue beyond inflation. I.e. a company makes a revenue jump but no "new profits", it gets sandbagged.

The coop business model says "profits" get returned to member/owners as capital credits. Everyone employed can still do really well, members get value for their money, and investors can go fuck themselves.

We need more co-ops.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

All* businesses that don't make money are viewed unfavorably because they aren't succeeding.

*Except, ironically, businesses buoyed by investment capital

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You have been banned from c/Conservative.

this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
919 points (97.4% liked)

World News

39371 readers
2656 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS