• ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      As much as economists like to pretend, capitalism is not a political system. The goal is exploitation because we choose so. As a society we could just as easily choose to make our goal the maximal fulfillment of the needs of the public. All that takes is preventing those without a personal concept of “enough” from controlling capital.

      • Banana@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Exploitation is fundamental to the existence of capitalism, it cannot exist without it, at least in my opinion, and the opinion of many other economists.

        In neoclassical economics (or at least to plenty of neoclassical economists - neoclassical being the prevalent theory in modern western society), the term “exploitation” refers to the exploitation of labour, which is when wages are lower than the marginal productivity of labour.

        To put it simply, surplus value is the difference between the value added by the labourer (for example, the assembly of car parts into a car, or turning raw materials into a product), and the wages they are paid.

        Surplus value also has another name: profit.

        The whole basis of capitalist economics is to prioritize, reward and encourage the maximization of profit. Based on my statements above, there is only one way to do that: exploiting labour. Thus, exploitation is not only prevalent in capitalism, but encouraged, rewarded, and required, otherwise the business will fail because it cannot keep up.

          • Banana@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            It ought to go to the people who created the value, but that wouldn’t be capitalism unless they are self-employed.

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        That’s just not possible when you factor in both accumulation of wealth (it’s exponential like compound interest) and the competition between capitalists for profit. The competition does not come from their moral beliefs but from the incentives created by the system itself.

        All that takes is preventing those without a personal concept of “enough” from controlling capital.

        This would require to remove capital from the hands of individuals and either throw it in the hands of the state, or change its (corporate) ownership to co-op model (one worker - one vote). Both have been shown to work but that would no longer be capitalism but instead a form of socialism, as private capital would no longer dictate what’s produced in the economy and how it’s distributed. Instead it would be dictated by the state which is controlled by the people through some form of democracy, or democratically by the workers within each corporation, or both. In both cases what’s produced is dictated by the needs of the majority of the workers in that state. And that’s textbook socialism.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Accumulated wealth is a choice. We can tax inheritance at 100% beyond a certain point (say 100,000x the federal minimum wage).

          The competition does not come from their moral beliefs but from the incentives created by the system itself.

          Disagree. It is a choice to not say to yourself “I have enough. I am stopping work and donating all this wealth I don’t need to charity.” It is a choice not to make your fortune, retire, and then give ownership of the company to the employees who made you successful. Society once chose to treat homosexuality as a mental illness. No reason we couldn’t do the same for greed.

          We say people can’t use slave labor. We say kids can’t work. There is no reason we couldn’t say people above a certain wealth threshold can’t work. That’s just regulation, not socialism.

        • SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          How to make a cluekess dude read Marx? It’s baffling that we have to answer the same questions again and again.

      • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Capitalism is an exploitation system. It will exploitation what it needs to, to ensure it continues. If that is policies then it will do so. Preventing those without the concept of enough from controlling capital is an an uphill battle. Easier said than done

            • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              24 hours ago

              Theft and rape get muddy but we still prosecute those. Society needs to draw a line somewhere.

              For example say 100% tax after $50 million net worth. Or 1 year in jail for executive officers of a company if the net income (stock counts as income valued at the price when acquired) of the highest paid person in a company makes more than 30x the lowest paid person. Or we just drone strike Forbes richest person every year. We just need to draw a line.

      • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        Capitalism doesn’t have a monopoly over the idea of exchanging goods and services. It’s all about accumulation of wealth and will pursue it endlessly because it has no endgame. Union busting; laying off 8,000 employees on leave (Meta); appeasing shareholders over the customers that made them wealthy; burying us all in AI slop.

        • Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          Man, the amount of people that think capitalism is a system of money exchange almost seems like one of the major issues somehow, as if people are afraid that they won’t be able to afford things, because there won’t be money. Neglecting that they already can’t afford things, because capitalism is a parasite that kills the host, not because tokens of value can exist outside that perversion.

          • 0ops@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            A free market is often (not necessarily) a characteristic of capitalism, but it’s not what makes a system capitalist. Capitalism is specifically when the means of production (the “capital”) are privately owned (by a single “capitalist” or a group of shareholder capitalists).

            This is opposed to socialism where the working class owns the means of production. Socialism vs capitalism basically comes down to who owns the mills and factories , the people who work there or some fat cat on a yacht somewhere? You can Google it for better explanations than I can give.

              • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                I don’t see why someone would. You are obliged to do the minimum research yourself if you want to meaningfully participate in these discussions. You are arguing for your gut feeling as reality, and being belligerent with people who disagree. This is an incredibly common pattern and it indicates that everyone is better off just ignoring you.